Chapter 29 - The Attack on the Family
The family unit has been called the cornerstone of civilization. The concept that the parents are responsible for the upbringing of the children produced during the marriage is the cornerstone of American life. Yet, there are efforts in America today to undermine, if not to destroy, the family unit altogether.
The desire to destroy the family unit is, as has been briefly alluded to in previous sections of this study, one of the goals of the New Age-Humanist-Communist movement.
Marilyn Ferguson, the New Age writer, has written this about the family unit in her book entitled, THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY: "Many sociologists anticipate the 'evolution' of monogamy. Marriage, they say, must be transformed as an institution if it is to survive at all.
If monogamy is tied inextricably with the restriction of all sexual expression to the spouse, they said, it will ultimately be monogamy that suffers." 560
The word "monogamy" has two meanings, both of which are applicable to this study. The word is defined as:
1. The practice or state of being married to only one person at a time.
2. The practice of marrying only once during life.
The dictionary added an appendage to the second definition: it said that that definition was "rare."
And indeed it is.
The tradition in America that the husband takes himself a wife, and then remains faithful to that spouse for the remainder of their life together is a Judeo-Christian one. In other words, it comes from the beliefs and teachings of two religious faiths.
Since this is not something that is written instinctively into the hearts of all men, and since man is given free choice, man is free to accept or reject the created institution of the family. The married man does not have to have but one wife and to remain faithful to her. It is only religion that has taught him that the monogamous marriage is the preferable lifestyle.
Marilyn Ferguson, a New Age writer, writes further: "Traditional monogamy contravenes the growing sense that the greatest good of human existence is deep interpersonal relationships, as many of these as is compatible with depth.
... younger people are trying to devise and invent a form of marriage appropriate to a new era." 561 As has been previously illustrated, the New Age Movement and the Communist Movement want to destroy the family. Here, one of the major New Age writers says that it is the young people who are attempting to devise a new marriage institution. The children are being taught to change the marriage contract by those in the New Age Movement who have written the textbooks, or encouraged a dialogue with the intent of changing their attitudes.
Even the definition of a family, meaning a male husband, a female wife, a child or children, has to be redefined for the New Age. Marilyn Ferguson has told us that this has already taken place: "The American Home Economics Association redefined the family in 1979 as 'two or more persons [meaning two men, or two women as well as one man and one woman] who share resources, share responsibility to one another over time.
The family is that climate that 'one comes home to;' and it is this network of sharing and commitments that most accurately describes the family unit, regardless of blood, legal ties, adoption, or marriage.'"
The American concept of marriage is that of a male husband, and a female wife. Homosexual or lesbian marriages are not legal. But that can change anytime those who make the laws decide to change it. The New Agers apparently want to change the laws to allow the marriage of two men or two women.
A major step in changing the traditional definition of the family just occurred in the state of New York. The headline of the July 6, 1989 article that discussed the change, reads: "Court rules gay couple a 'family.'"
The article reported: "New York's highest court ruled today that a partner in a long-term homosexual relationship may take over the couple's rent-controlled apartment when the lover who signed the lease dies.
... the Court of Appeals ordered a lower court to reconsider its decision to evict a New York City man from a rent-controlled apartment he shared... with his now-dead lover.
... the court expanded the definition of a 'family'...
The word is crucial because state law says only 'family members' may take over rent-controlled apartments when the tenant of record dies.
The court said that the definition should include adults who show long-term financial and emotional commitment to each other, even if they don't fit the traditional meaning of a 'family.'" 562
So, even the definition of a family is under attack. It will have to be changed if the family is to be destroyed.
As discussed, there are some who want the family unit to be destroyed altogether. The destruction of the family unit has been the goal of the Communists and Socialists for over 140 years. Karl Marx, the so-called father of Communism, wrote that that was the goal of the Party: "Abolition of the family!
Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists." 563
And Robert Owen, the so-called father of Socialism, wrote: "In the new moral world, the irrational names of husband and wife, parent and child, will be heard no more. All connection will the result of affection; the child will undoubtedly be the property of the whole community." 564
And the process of the change from the idea that the raising of the child should be the responsibility of the family to that where the child will be raised by the state has already started in some of the Communist countries.
One of those countries is Cuba.
The Cuban people were once basically a religious people, with the overwhelming majority belonging to the Catholic Church. But much of that has changed since Fidel Castro, the Communist, converted that nation into a Communist country. These comments are from a 1988 article in the New American magazine: "Heterosexual relations in Cuba are characterized by rampant promiscuity and widespread prostitution.
The abject poverty to which Castro has reduced the island encourages prostitution.
The institution of marriage has almost lost its meaning in Cuba. Many persons marry and divorce frequently.
... the Castro regime has worked to destroy family ties and to break the control of parents over their children. The Communists in Cuba have baited children with the offer by setting up live-in schools in the countryside. At these schools students study half a day and then must work in the fields for the other half.
While attendance at these 'escuelas en el campo'
[meaning camp schools] is not mandatory, students of junior high and high school levels are encouraged to attend. Even students who do not attend the live-in school must participate yearly in a six-week work period deep in the rural areas of Cuba.
The Castro regime relies heavily upon the use of hundreds of thousands of unpaid school children to work in the fields each year. Under the cover of educational programs, the Castro regime exploits child labor and disrupts parental authority." 565
It is interesting that the leader of Cuba, Fidel Castro, sets the example for infidelity and promiscuity in the marriage union. He has five known children born out of wedlock to different mothers. 566
Other Communist nations have shown their commitment to the destruction of the family. The Communists in China have also been at least partially successful in their drive to destroy the family unit. Those who have studied that nation's past know that the family unit had been the cornerstone of their civilization for centuries.
One Chinese citizen who was able to flee his country after the Communists took control in 1949 was Reverend Shih-ping Wang, the East Asia director of the Baptist Evangelization Society. He testified before the House Committee on Un- American Activities about what happened to the family when Communism seized control of China: "The family unit is broken up. Husbands and wives are separated in different barracks. The children are taken away from the parents and placed in government-run nurseries.
Husbands and wives meet only once a week for two hours ~ they have no other contact...
The parents may see their children once a week and when they see them they can show no affection toward their children. Names are taken away from children and they are given numbers.
There is no individual identity." 567
Some of the measures to control the family unit in China are rather subtle, while others are not. For instance, any couple wishing to get married must have permission of the Communist Party. Political dissidents, for one, are not permitted to marry. Once any couple is granted that permission, even the decision as to how many children the couple can have in these so called "marriages" is a decision of others.
One who testified to that fact was another Chinese refugee, Dr. Han Suyin, a native of Peking, who reported in an address to the Swiss Society of Surgeons in 1975 that the: "residents of each neighborhood in the People's Republic of China meet annually to decide how many babies will be born during the next year and to which families.
Priority is given to newly married women without children. As a guarantee against chance or mistakes, contraceptive pills are distributed on each street every morning." 568
This policy of allowing the "people" to decide just how many children each couple can have in China has led to the practice of infanticide, meaning the intentional killing of babies. The government does not allow any couple to have more than one child, and this edict has caused the following problem: "a leading newspaper of Southern China [has]
reported that during 1980, eight female infants were found dead, abandoned in front of the local party headquarters...
Most had been suffocated." 569
The article continued by explaining why only female children were being killed by distraught parents: "Should a couple's first [and only] child be a girl, many parents fear that they will be left without an heir or source of support in their declining years.
Thus, in certain areas some parents have begun murdering their first-born female offspring."
Other options are available for those parents who do not have the courage to murder their children. A recent report, in March of 1989, reported that some parents have developed another method of allowing their children a way to survive: "An estimated 25 million 'illegals' are living in Red China. They are unregistered children who are not immigrants or aliens, but native-born Chinese whose parents hide them and keep them unregistered by the government because of its official 'one family-child' policy.
The unregistered children cannot attend government schools, receive government aid of any kind, or work for the government in any capacity." 570
This decision to allow only one child to a couple in China is enforced by other practices: "If a couple persists in having a second child, one of the parents is forced to buy all grain rations at twice the regulation prices for the next seven years.
The third child does not get the identity card that entitles him to food rations." 571
But if the Communist Party discovers that a Chinese woman got pregnant without their permission, they force her to have an abortion. Jonathan Mirsky, in an article for The Nation, wrote that women who got pregnant without permission had been kidnapped on Communist Party orders and forced to have an abortion, even if she was in the third trimester of her pregnancy.
This "one-child per family" concept poses another problem:
what does the Communist Party do if the woman gives birth to twins? That question was answered by an American who visited Red China.
Stephen Mosher was a graduate student at Stanford University working on his doctorate when he was asked to do research for his thesis in China. He consented, and went to live in a small village in the southern part. His discoveries of life in that nation astounded him. These are his comments about what happens when a Chinese woman gave birth to twins: "... an official... demanded that she specify which of the two she wished to raise. The mother could not answer him, so the official made the decision for her, disposing of one of the newborn babies." 572
The practice of abortion has become so widespread that the United States government has estimated that more than 78 million were performed in Red China between the years 1971 and 1982.
But the Chinese Communists place other obstacles in the way of a Chinese couple. These obstacles hinder the ability of the couple to enjoy married life.
"It is now mandatory for women to work in the fields. They do, and they still do all the housework."
Obviously, a Chinese woman forced to work in a field does not have time to be involved in the full-time raising of I family.
The utter despair of some of the women in China because of these Communist imposed conditions has led to a new problem: "Peasant girls in the remote southern region of China are taking their lives in unprecedented numbers." 573
Girls are committing suicide in record numbers in Red China because of the pressure on the marriage, the abortion problem, and the requirement that they can give birth to only one child.
But the problem in China is not too many Chinese.
It is simply too much Communism.
The Communists have imposed Communism, also called the New World Order, on the Chinese people, and it has failed, just as could have been predicted by anyone who had studied the history of Communism.
The Communist system does not work; it has never worked; and it is not working in China.
And there is an easy way to prove that that statement is correct.
Off the shore of Communist China lies the islands known as Formosa or Taiwan. This separate Chinese nation has not bought the fraud known as Communism. It is basically allowing its citizens to enjoy the right to private property.
The Taiwanese government is supporting the economic system known as the Free Enterprise System.
Former Congressman Eldon Rudd of Arizona illustrated the difference between Communism and Freedom: "With 270 times the land area and 58 times the population, the Gross National Product [the G.N.P.] of Mainland China [Communist China] is only 10 times the G.N.P. of Taiwan.
The figures I have cited illustrate beyond contradiction the material abundance created by freedom's climate.
In my view, this is the smallest and least important of the remarkable differences between the People's Republic of China [meaning Communist China]
and the free government of Taiwan. The true difference is spirit -- the human condition, the absence of compulsion and regimentation, the presence of individual opportunity." 574
So the problem in China is not too much population.
It is too much Communism.
It is too much "New World Order."
So the family unit in China, the cornerstone of their civilization for centuries, has essentially been destroyed by the Communist Party.
And it was not destroyed by mistake. It was planned that way.
And the Bolshevik Communists in the Soviet Union have nearly duplicated the "success" of the Chinese Communists.
The September, 1988 Reader's Digest magazine carried an article called Should We Bail Out Gorbachev? in which they discussed life in the Soviet Union. This is one of the comments made in that article: "At least 13 million urban families still must live in communal apartments or dormitories, sharing bath, kitchen and even bedrooms with other families. In Moscow, newly constructed apartment complexes are crumbling." 575
So a great percentage of the Russian families do not have a place to live separate from other people. Married life does not seem exceptionally attractive to a young couple contemplating marriage. So, if the Communists are trying to destroy the family in Russia, one of the ways to do it would be to not construct enough government owned apartments or houses.
And that is exactly what they have done.
Also, the Soviet Union is utilizing the same infanticide that is occurring in Red China.
"Topping the world in legal abortions is the Soviet Union ~ where there are an estimated eight million annually of the 30 million worldwide.
According to the Moscow News, an astounding nine of 10 of the first pregnancies in the U.S.S.R. end in the legal killing of the unborn child.
The corresponding figures in the United States, reports the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York City, is one of three of the first pregnancies terminating in abortion and 1.6 million abortions annually." 576
Those who support the concept of legal abortions often claim that those who charge that life begins at conception are wrong.
Their position is that life begins at birth. But there are others who are claiming that even that date is not adequate, and that life should start at some later date.
One of these is Sir Francis Crick, a British medical doctor, a socialist and, by the way, a signer of the HUMANIST MANIFEST II. He has been quoted as saying that he foresees the day when: "no newborn infant will be declared human unless it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment. If it fails these tests, it forfeits its right to live." 577
Picture the anguish of the parents who have given life to a newborn child, deemed to be "defective" by Dr. Crick, when they discover that the good doctor has decided to "take its right to life." Imagine what this concept does to those planning a family.
And now the reader can understand what some of the Humanists think of the value of human life. Once an individual denies the existence of God, he becomes god himself, and he can decide all of those things that other people feel God used to decide. Such things as: the right to life, the right to property, etc.
But the attacks on the family in America are a little more subtle. But they are real, none the less.
In 1988, the Supreme Court decided that a husband has no right to stop his wife from having an abortion. The appeals court, which passed the decision onto the Supreme Court, had stated that the husband "has no right to veto [his wife's] decision [to have the abortion] as such [a] decision concerns only her." 578
This decision certainly had a long-lasting effect upon the marriage where both parties to the marriage contract are supposed to have a say in any decision that affects both parties.
But the latest attack on the family is a new phenomenon called "child abuse." The National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse advises there were 1.2 million reports of child abuse in 1984. Those who have paid attention to this or more current figures are suitably outraged, having been conditioned to believe that this abuse is rampant inside the American society.
However, the reason that the response to these statistics can be called hysteria, is this comment from Douglas Besharov, the first director of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, who has charged that over 60 percent of these complaints are totally unfounded. And others have said that that figure might be as high as 80 percent.
And in most of the remaining cases, the injury actually involved neglect ~ failure to provide what some social worker deemed to be adequate food, clothing or shelter -- a far cry from the sordid crimes widely publicized in the press.
One foreign nation which responded to the hysteria was Sweden, which passed a law in 1979 punishing parents who spank their children. The Parade magazine article that reported on the law mentioned the case where a father told his son not to take his younger brother out on a bicycle ride. The son disobeyed his father, and the father gave him a spanking on the buttocks.
The son marched down to the local police station and reported his dad for spanking him. A jury later found the father guilty and fined him.
In America, this hysteria has led to a horrendous intrusion of the government into private family matters, much of which appears to be unwarranted and some of which is demonstrably harmful to the children involved.
The definitions of "child abuse" have basically made criminals out of nearly every parent in America. A federally funded study, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, and released in November of 1985, defines the victims of "violence against children" as being those who have "slapped or spanked," or "pushed, grabbed, or shoved" their children. It would be difficult to find any parent in America that wouldn't be included in those categories.
The broad definition of "child abuse," which makes every parent in America into a criminal, makes sense if the observer remembers that there are people in America today who want to destroy the family. The way for them to achieve their goal is to convince the world that families abuse their children, and that "social workers" do not. Then, when the authorities come to take the children away from the parents of America, the overwhelming majority of the remainder of the citizens will accept the action as being required by the conditions.
And the traditional family, as was known in America for centuries, will exist no longer.
And some will be pleased.
Textbooks are beginning to teach that the family unit is a relic of the past. Arthur W. Calhoun wrote a book entitled, A SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY. It was a social service textbook utilized as a vehicle to educate students that the society must assume traditional responsibilities assumed by the family. Mr. Calhoun wrote: "The view is that the higher and more obligatory relation is to society rather than to the family; the family goes back to the age of savagery while the state belongs to the age of civilization. The modern individual is a world citizen served by the world, and home interests can no longer be supreme.
But as soon as the new family consisting only of the parents and the children stood forth, society saw how many were unfit for parenthood and began to realize the need for community care.
As familism of the wider sort... weakens, society has to assume a larger parenthood.
In general, society is coming more and more to accept as a duty the task of guaranteeing wholesome upbringing of the young... the child passes more and more into the custody of community experts [called teachers or social workers] who are qualified to perform the complexer functions of parenthood... and which the parents have neither the time nor knowledge to perform." 579
The family unit in America is decaying, and the thinking is that society must hire "experts" who are capable of the raising the children instead of the parents. So, suddenly "child abuse" articles started showing up in the newspapers of America. When the "experts" say that it is time to take the children away from all of the parents, the society will accept the decision because it appears to be the proper solution.
An organization known as Friends of Earth decided that the solution is to "license" parents: "If the less stringent curbs on procreation fail, someday perhaps childbearing will be deemed a punishable crime against society unless the parents hold a government license.
Or perhaps all potential parents will be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the governments issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." 580
In addition to the family causing all of this harm to children, parents are also producing too many offspring. The contention is that the world is simply over-populated. Fortunately, for the planners, the same Friends of Earth has become aware of this problem and they are offering their solution: "... we should set a goal of reducing population to a level that the planet's resources can sustain indefinitely at a decent standard of living ~ probably less than two billion." 581
When one considers that the world has approximately five billion people on it now, one can only wonder how the Friends of Earth are going to eliminate 3 billion people. So far, the solutions do not include plans to simply poison or shoot billions of people, but one can only wonder what the Friends of Earth will offer the world if the people do not voluntarily solve this purported problem.
The organization does not rule out the use of force to stop the "population explosion," however. They continued: "Ultimately, those policies may have to embrace coercion by governments to curb breeding." 582
It doesn't take much imagination to envision the size of a government that would have the ability to prevent every couple in the world from producing unwanted pregnancies.
Nor does it take superior intelligence to see what the next step would be should all of these "voluntary" methods fail. If the world population will not voluntarily stop producing too many children, then coercive measures must be employed.
But, it can be assumed that the Friends of the Earth be lieve that those 3 billion people will understand when they come to exterminate them. Don't forget, it is for the good of humanity!
But in the future, the parent who believes that he or she is capable of raising children will become a criminal. One organization that sees that situation occurring in the future is the World Future Society, which wrote this: "The adult criminal of the twenty-first century may be less common than his twentieth century counterpart, in part because of the way society treats children from the moment they are born.
Parental care in the year 2000 may be different.
from today's, and better, since by then the movement to license or certify parents may well be under way."
In most cases, certified couples would be allowed to have their own natural children. In some instances, however, genetic scanning may find that some women and men can produce "super" babies but are not well suited to rear them.
These couples would be licensed to breed, but will give up their children to other people licensed to rear them.
Child breeding and rearing may be considered too important to be left to chance.
"... wanted children will have fewer environmental reasons to turn to crime, and controlled breeding will result in fewer biological reasons for crime." 583 The attack on the family in America has taken several clever and unique twists. The family destroyers have resorted to cleverness to disguise their original intent: they do not want the parents to know that the destruction of the family is their goal. So they conceal their purposes by quietly causing problems that create intense pressures on the family.
One of the methods utilized is that of inflation.
Inflation is simply defined by a dictionary as an increase in the money supply, causing prices to go up. That means that whoever controls the money supply controls the price level. Increase the money supply, and prices rise. Decrease the money supply and prices go down (called Deflation.) Once Inflation or Deflation has been documented, the government economists point with pride at the supposed perpetrators: the public. They never direct their attention at the real culprit in America: the privately owned Federal Reserve system.
This private banking establishment has complete control over the quantity of money in circulation. Therefore, they have the ability to create Inflation or Deflation whenever they choose to do so.
The rising price level without a corresponding increase in a family's income causes the wife in a family unit who has chosen to care for her own child at home to leave the nurturing of the children to others in order to seek gainful employment so that she can increase the family's earnings. The parents are forced to place their children in a government run school. This enables the planners to teach the children what they want taught at an earlier age. And it places the mother in a position where she sees less and less of her children, and the children see more and more of the government trained substitute "parents."
The planners have been extremely successful, as the number of working mothers has been steadily increasing.
According to a report issued in 1987, more than 44 percent of women work outside the home, compared to only 32 percent in 1960. Of women with children under one year of age, close to 50 percent are currently employed, a figure that has doubled since 1970. 584
But, what happens to the child when they are placed into day care centers? Are they better off? One group of individuals who feel that they are not are the doctors inside the American Academy of Pediatrics who have reported that the children placed in these centers are subject to all sorts of diseases caused by bacteria, viruses and parasites. They are more than 12 times as likely to catch flu viruses and 15 to 20 times more likely to catch other diseases than children under maternal care.
So the day care center has a negative impact on the health of a child placed there by a working mother. When the child gets sick, the mother must take time off from her job to care for the child, or to place the child in the hands of the medical fraternity. If the mother gets paid by the hour, and only gets paid when she is on the job, this frequent sickness costs the family additional revenue. And the only time that the mother sees her child, other than evenings or weekends, is when the child is sick and not feeling well. This does not tend to support warm mother-child feelings.
But there is another lesser known problem when the mother is not directly involved in the care of the child. Until fairly recently, the assumption that care by the mother was the best kind of child care went unchallenged. John Bowlby's widely acclaimed book entitled, MATERNAL CARE AND MENTAL HEALTH, published in 1951, concluded that the "warm, intimate, and continuous" care of the mother or permanent mother substitute was essential to the "development of character and mental health." He called the absence of this mother-child relationship "maternal deprivation" and said that it was likely to result in "maladjustment of the child."
This was the consensus view of the vast majority of psychologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, and the general public until the medical and professional organizations capitulated to the demands of the feminist movement in the 1970s.
The continuing debate over Dr. Jay Belsky's recent "heresy"
is testimony to the power of the feminist/day care lobby in academic and professional circles. Belsky, a professor of child psychology at Pennsylvania State University, was, a decade ago, one of the influential voices that saw no harm in institutional child care. Now, he says, convincing research shows that non-maternal care for more than 20 hours per week for children under a year old is a "risk factor." Day care at that young age can impede secure parent/child relationships and lead to rebellious and aggressive behavior, or shy and withdrawn behavior in the preschool and early years. His views have caused him much grief, as colleagues and feminists have come down hard on him for his views. They have impugned his research, his credentials, and his motives. 585
Even Dr. Benjamin Spock, certainly no "conservative" in other matters, has also resisted the push for group child care, especially before the age of three. He has taken a position that appears to be out of character for him. He has written: "It is stressful for children to have to cope with groups, with strangers, with people outside the family." 586
And another "certified Harvard liberal," Professor Burton White, warns parents: "Unless you have a very good reason, I urge you not to delegate the primary child-rearing task to anyone else during your child's first three years of life." 587
But the debate is certain to continue. Those who want to destroy the family will continue to urge mothers to leave the home and "become fulfilled in the workplace." When the mother goes into the workplace to "become fulfilled," or to increase the family's income, she leaves the care of the children to others.
Those who warn against such practices will continue to be scorned by the feminists and others who have a hidden agenda: they want to destroy the family.
Another subtle pressure against marriage was concealed inside a headline in a local newspaper that read: "New tax laws to increase 'marriage tax' for many." The article defined the term "marriage tax" as a term used to: "describe the extra tax burden paid by a married couple when compared with the tax paid by two single people with the same total income." 588
So, those individuals smart enough to know how the tax laws work against them decide not to get married.
And in some cases, the destruction of the family has not gone unnoticed. Newsweek magazine of January 12, 1981, carried an article by Dr. Jonathan Kellerman, a psychologist, and author. He wrote this: "However, when one examines the role government has played in its relationship to the family, it is clear that not only has there been no support, on the contrary there has been a systematic erosion of the family, perpetuated by executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
The trend of the last two decades toward more government intervention and control has carried with it a clear message to families: you are not competent to decide how to live your life -- we know better." 589 And some in America have discovered that the psychologist was correct. An article in the Arizona Republic reported that "Family life [was! harmed by government, poll says." The article quoted pollster George Gallup, who said that: "nearly half of those who responded to his organization's 1980 survey on the American family believe the federal government has an unfavorable influence on family life." 590 And the government is once again using the tax laws to discriminate against families with full time mothers. The present tax code favors families whose mothers enter the work force over families with full-time mothers. Those parents who do not send the mother out into the work force must subsidize those who do.
Secondly, the tax laws are weighted heavily against parental choice in child care. Most surveys indicate that working parents generally prefer leaving their child with relatives, neighbors or friends. Current tax laws do not recognize these forms of child care as legitimate; thus, parents who choose to use them do not receive an income-tax credit for the costs of child care. So many parents choose to have the government assist them in the costs of their child care by providing a tax credit and give their children over to the government to raise them.
And lastly, current or proposed legislation concerning child care tax credits discriminate against the many church-related day care facilities. These laws prohibit funding for any child care facility "unless all religious symbols and artifacts are covered or have been removed."
A classic example of the unrestrained use of government force against a child care facility occurred in 1984, when the State of Texas attempted to completely shut down three children's homes run by Pastor Lester Roloff. He, like Pastor Silevin before him, refused to allow the state to license his homes for the children who had been voluntarily placed there by their parents. The state of Texas went to court, but in 1981 a state district judge denied its request for an injunction against the Pastor's homes, concluding that the licensing procedure as applied to the church running them would violate the constitutions of both the United States and Texas.
The federal Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
However, the state Supreme Court rejected the church's contention that licensing would interfere with religious freedom.
The Chief Justice did not object to the quality of the care provided by the Roloff homes; his concern was the simple fact that they would not submit to licensing. He noted that the homes have "a good record of high quality service,"
and that they could "easily satisfy licensing requirements, but had chosen not to do so."
So the state wanted certain restrictions on the care provided children in Pastor Roloffs homes. Several of those restrictions were so incredible that they show that the major reason the state went after the child care facilities was simply that they were too successful.
The first of these restrictions was (not a complete list):
1. "You should not threaten a child with the displeasure of Deity."
In other words, you couldn't tell a child that he was a sinner. Remember that these children had been placed in these homes because they had become disciplinary problems to their parents. The parents, who had seen their children become involved in prostitution, drugs and criminal activity, had turned to the Pastor for help in turning their child around. They turned to him because he was a Christian Pastor, and because he had demonstrated success in hundreds of similar cases before. These parents loved their children and wanted them to stop their criminal and anti-social behavior.
They cared for them enough to voluntarily place them in a program that had proven successful. Only a very small percentage of these children had been placed in these homes by the court system.
One of the reasons the Pastor was successful was because he turned the children to religion. But the state told him he could not use that as a method of correcting the child.
The second restriction was:
2. "The institution shall see that each child is supplied with personal clothing suitable to the child's age and size. It shall be comparable to the clothing of other children in the community."
The Pastor and his staff felt that much of the clothing the children were wearing was too suggestive and improper. So they attempted to provide the children with modest clothing less stimulating and provocative. They felt that this restriction would place the children back into the clothing that in many cases had caused them to have problems before their arrival at the Roloff homes.
The third restriction was:
3. "Children should be encouraged to form friendships with persons outside the institution."
It would be fair to observe that such friendships were frequently what brought the children to the homes in the first place.
The fourth restriction was:
4. "The opinions and recommendations of the children in care shall be considered in the development and evaluation of the program and activities. The procedure for this shall be documented."
Letting the inmates run the prison sounds like an excellent idea until the prisoners suggest that the restraining bars should be removed. Many of these children had become discipline problems mainly because they had decided that they could best run their own lives. When this determination had failed, the parents placed them into Pastor Roloff s homes so that they would learn some discipline. But the state wanted them to learn how to run their own lives again.
The purpose of all of this incredible pressure on the Roloff homes appeared to be the desire of the state to weaken the ability of the Roloff homes to be successful with these troubled children. A secondary purpose appeared to be the desire to weaken the family, and encourage the state to devise methods that would remove the control of the children from the parents and to give them over to the state.
Perhaps the role model that the family destroyers want to emulate is the Soviet Union, where enormous pressures are intentionally placed upon the Russian family.
Parade magazine carried an article about an American family which had returned to Russia in 1987 after having lived there in the late 1960's. The wife in the marriage has written a book about modern life in that nation, and these are some of her observations.
"... the average young married woman in the Soviet Union... is a prisoner of the Soviet custom and doctrine, which calls for a wife, without her husband's help, to perform the tough, rough, rugged
household chores -- the laundry, the cleaning, the cooking, the moving, the shopping, the child-caring -- all of these in addition to holding down her own job outside the home eight hours a day." 591
In Russia, work is a duty of its citizens. That obligation has been written into their Constitution.
Article 12 reads as follows: "Work in the U.S.S.R. is a duty and a matter of honour for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat.'
The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.'"
It would appear from a cursory examination of these sentences that work in Russia is for men only. The first paragraph refers to work being a male occupation: "HE who does not work...," and the second says: "... according to HIS ability." However, the first paragraph says that "Work is a duty... for every able-bodied citizen." Women are "able bodied citizens" just like men. Therefore, the Constitution makes it clear that this work requirement is for both sexes. Women must toil for the Russian economy as well as men.
This means that married women are obligated to work as well as single women. The fact that the married woman must work for the state obviously leaves the children free to be raised by the government. And that is the desired result of that provision in the Constitution.
And the fact that the married woman must work for the society means that she has less time to spend with her family.
The article continued with some of the obstacles that the Russian economy puts on the wife during the typical day: "... the Soviet woman... rises early, not much past 6, prepares breakfast for the family, gets the children off to school, goes to her own work. During lunch, it's hurry up and wait. Instead of enjoying her breather, she bolts down her food and races to the nearest store, where she waits and waits and waits to buy whatever approximates the needs of her family.
Almost always there's a shortage of meat, fruit, vegetables, soap and quality products of anything."
The Soviet economic system, called Communism, has been proven to be a failure by 6000 years of experience. The Communist system destroys the incentive to produce and the population suffers from the lack of consumption goods. No Communist would be bold enough to admit that it is the system that has failed. So contrived explanations are offered to explain the shortages.
There is no food because a "drought" reduced farm yields.
"Military equipment spending priorities" have replaced production quotas for consumption goods.
It is certainly conceivable that those in charge want the married family to suffer these pressures, so that few in the married population will be happy. The entire system is intentionally designed to be a failure, and no one would dare correct it.
It is clear that pressure on the family is the desired product of Communism.
The article confirmed this with this comment: "No wonder so many Soviet men drink, sulk and accuse their wives of frigidity and indifference. No wonder the Soviet Union is so rife with divorce."
The married woman in Russia is obviously too tired to care for her husband, and the result becomes predictable: a rising divorce rate.
And no one blames those who have intentionally created an economic system that was certain to put those pressures on the family. The planners have experienced their desired result: marriage has become the least desired relationship in Russia.
Perhaps the entire scenario was placed into perspective on the side of the government "experts" by B. F. Skinner, the chairman of the Harvard Department of Psychology, who wrote this about his book
entitled, BEYOND FREEDOM AND DIGNITY: "My book is an effort to demonstrate how things go bad when you make a fetish out of individual freedom and dignity.
If you insist that individual rights are the 'summum bonum,' [meaning the highest good,] then the whole structure of society falls down." 592
So, those who want to destroy the family want the world to turn the society over to them.
And those running the society continue to destroy it.
The strategy is not new. In fact, it has been the strategy of this conspiracy for centuries.
They cause the problem.
Then they solve the problem with more government.
And the people are convinced that their solution is desirable, generally because that is the only solution offered.
And the end result is less freedom for the people.
And it works nearly every time.
The family unit has been called the cornerstone of civilization. The concept that the parents are responsible for the upbringing of the children produced during the marriage is the cornerstone of American life. Yet, there are efforts in America today to undermine, if not to destroy, the family unit altogether.
The desire to destroy the family unit is, as has been briefly alluded to in previous sections of this study, one of the goals of the New Age-Humanist-Communist movement.
Marilyn Ferguson, the New Age writer, has written this about the family unit in her book entitled, THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY: "Many sociologists anticipate the 'evolution' of monogamy. Marriage, they say, must be transformed as an institution if it is to survive at all.
If monogamy is tied inextricably with the restriction of all sexual expression to the spouse, they said, it will ultimately be monogamy that suffers." 560
The word "monogamy" has two meanings, both of which are applicable to this study. The word is defined as:
1. The practice or state of being married to only one person at a time.
2. The practice of marrying only once during life.
The dictionary added an appendage to the second definition: it said that that definition was "rare."
And indeed it is.
The tradition in America that the husband takes himself a wife, and then remains faithful to that spouse for the remainder of their life together is a Judeo-Christian one. In other words, it comes from the beliefs and teachings of two religious faiths.
Since this is not something that is written instinctively into the hearts of all men, and since man is given free choice, man is free to accept or reject the created institution of the family. The married man does not have to have but one wife and to remain faithful to her. It is only religion that has taught him that the monogamous marriage is the preferable lifestyle.
Marilyn Ferguson, a New Age writer, writes further: "Traditional monogamy contravenes the growing sense that the greatest good of human existence is deep interpersonal relationships, as many of these as is compatible with depth.
... younger people are trying to devise and invent a form of marriage appropriate to a new era." 561 As has been previously illustrated, the New Age Movement and the Communist Movement want to destroy the family. Here, one of the major New Age writers says that it is the young people who are attempting to devise a new marriage institution. The children are being taught to change the marriage contract by those in the New Age Movement who have written the textbooks, or encouraged a dialogue with the intent of changing their attitudes.
Even the definition of a family, meaning a male husband, a female wife, a child or children, has to be redefined for the New Age. Marilyn Ferguson has told us that this has already taken place: "The American Home Economics Association redefined the family in 1979 as 'two or more persons [meaning two men, or two women as well as one man and one woman] who share resources, share responsibility to one another over time.
The family is that climate that 'one comes home to;' and it is this network of sharing and commitments that most accurately describes the family unit, regardless of blood, legal ties, adoption, or marriage.'"
130
The American concept of marriage is that of a male husband, and a female wife. Homosexual or lesbian marriages are not legal. But that can change anytime those who make the laws decide to change it. The New Agers apparently want to change the laws to allow the marriage of two men or two women.
A major step in changing the traditional definition of the family just occurred in the state of New York. The headline of the July 6, 1989 article that discussed the change, reads: "Court rules gay couple a 'family.'"
The article reported: "New York's highest court ruled today that a partner in a long-term homosexual relationship may take over the couple's rent-controlled apartment when the lover who signed the lease dies.
... the Court of Appeals ordered a lower court to reconsider its decision to evict a New York City man from a rent-controlled apartment he shared... with his now-dead lover.
... the court expanded the definition of a 'family'...
The word is crucial because state law says only 'family members' may take over rent-controlled apartments when the tenant of record dies.
The court said that the definition should include adults who show long-term financial and emotional commitment to each other, even if they don't fit the traditional meaning of a 'family.'" 562
So, even the definition of a family is under attack. It will have to be changed if the family is to be destroyed.
As discussed, there are some who want the family unit to be destroyed altogether. The destruction of the family unit has been the goal of the Communists and Socialists for over 140 years. Karl Marx, the so-called father of Communism, wrote that that was the goal of the Party: "Abolition of the family!
Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists." 563
And Robert Owen, the so-called father of Socialism, wrote: "In the new moral world, the irrational names of husband and wife, parent and child, will be heard no more. All connection will the result of affection; the child will undoubtedly be the property of the whole community." 564
And the process of the change from the idea that the raising of the child should be the responsibility of the family to that where the child will be raised by the state has already started in some of the Communist countries.
One of those countries is Cuba.
The Cuban people were once basically a religious people, with the overwhelming majority belonging to the Catholic Church. But much of that has changed since Fidel Castro, the Communist, converted that nation into a Communist country. These comments are from a 1988 article in the New American magazine: "Heterosexual relations in Cuba are characterized by rampant promiscuity and widespread prostitution.
The abject poverty to which Castro has reduced the island encourages prostitution.
The institution of marriage has almost lost its meaning in Cuba. Many persons marry and divorce frequently.
... the Castro regime has worked to destroy family ties and to break the control of parents over their children. The Communists in Cuba have baited children with the offer by setting up live-in schools in the countryside. At these schools students study half a day and then must work in the fields for the other half.
While attendance at these 'escuelas en el campo'
131
[meaning camp schools] is not mandatory, students of junior high and high school levels are encouraged to attend. Even students who do not attend the live-in school must participate yearly in a six-week work period deep in the rural areas of Cuba.
The Castro regime relies heavily upon the use of hundreds of thousands of unpaid school children to work in the fields each year. Under the cover of educational programs, the Castro regime exploits child labor and disrupts parental authority." 565
It is interesting that the leader of Cuba, Fidel Castro, sets the example for infidelity and promiscuity in the marriage union. He has five known children born out of wedlock to different mothers. 566
Other Communist nations have shown their commitment to the destruction of the family. The Communists in China have also been at least partially successful in their drive to destroy the family unit. Those who have studied that nation's past know that the family unit had been the cornerstone of their civilization for centuries.
One Chinese citizen who was able to flee his country after the Communists took control in 1949 was Reverend Shih-ping Wang, the East Asia director of the Baptist Evangelization Society. He testified before the House Committee on Un- American Activities about what happened to the family when Communism seized control of China: "The family unit is broken up. Husbands and wives are separated in different barracks. The children are taken away from the parents and placed in government-run nurseries.
Husbands and wives meet only once a week for two hours ~ they have no other contact...
The parents may see their children once a week and when they see them they can show no affection toward their children. Names are taken away from children and they are given numbers.
There is no individual identity." 567
Some of the measures to control the family unit in China are rather subtle, while others are not. For instance, any couple wishing to get married must have permission of the Communist Party. Political dissidents, for one, are not permitted to marry. Once any couple is granted that permission, even the decision as to how many children the couple can have in these so called "marriages" is a decision of others.
One who testified to that fact was another Chinese refugee, Dr. Han Suyin, a native of Peking, who reported in an address to the Swiss Society of Surgeons in 1975 that the: "residents of each neighborhood in the People's Republic of China meet annually to decide how many babies will be born during the next year and to which families.
Priority is given to newly married women without children. As a guarantee against chance or mistakes, contraceptive pills are distributed on each street every morning." 568
This policy of allowing the "people" to decide just how many children each couple can have in China has led to the practice of infanticide, meaning the intentional killing of babies. The government does not allow any couple to have more than one child, and this edict has caused the following problem: "a leading newspaper of Southern China [has]
reported that during 1980, eight female infants were found dead, abandoned in front of the local party headquarters...
Most had been suffocated." 569
The article continued by explaining why only female children were being killed by distraught parents: "Should a couple's first [and only] child be a girl, many parents fear that they will be left without an heir or source of support in their declining years.
Thus, in certain areas some parents have begun murdering their first-born female offspring."
132
Other options are available for those parents who do not have the courage to murder their children. A recent report, in March of 1989, reported that some parents have developed another method of allowing their children a way to survive: "An estimated 25 million 'illegals' are living in Red China. They are unregistered children who are not immigrants or aliens, but native-born Chinese whose parents hide them and keep them unregistered by the government because of its official 'one family-child' policy.
The unregistered children cannot attend government schools, receive government aid of any kind, or work for the government in any capacity." 570
This decision to allow only one child to a couple in China is enforced by other practices: "If a couple persists in having a second child, one of the parents is forced to buy all grain rations at twice the regulation prices for the next seven years.
The third child does not get the identity card that entitles him to food rations." 571
But if the Communist Party discovers that a Chinese woman got pregnant without their permission, they force her to have an abortion. Jonathan Mirsky, in an article for The Nation, wrote that women who got pregnant without permission had been kidnapped on Communist Party orders and forced to have an abortion, even if she was in the third trimester of her pregnancy.
This "one-child per family" concept poses another problem:
what does the Communist Party do if the woman gives birth to twins? That question was answered by an American who visited Red China.
Stephen Mosher was a graduate student at Stanford University working on his doctorate when he was asked to do research for his thesis in China. He consented, and went to live in a small village in the southern part. His discoveries of life in that nation astounded him. These are his comments about what happens when a Chinese woman gave birth to twins: "... an official... demanded that she specify which of the two she wished to raise. The mother could not answer him, so the official made the decision for her, disposing of one of the newborn babies." 572
The practice of abortion has become so widespread that the United States government has estimated that more than 78 million were performed in Red China between the years 1971 and 1982.
But the Chinese Communists place other obstacles in the way of a Chinese couple. These obstacles hinder the ability of the couple to enjoy married life.
"It is now mandatory for women to work in the fields. They do, and they still do all the housework."
Obviously, a Chinese woman forced to work in a field does not have time to be involved in the full-time raising of I family.
The utter despair of some of the women in China because of these Communist imposed conditions has led to a new problem: "Peasant girls in the remote southern region of China are taking their lives in unprecedented numbers." 573
Girls are committing suicide in record numbers in Red China because of the pressure on the marriage, the abortion problem, and the requirement that they can give birth to only one child.
But the problem in China is not too many Chinese.
It is simply too much Communism.
The Communists have imposed Communism, also called the New World Order, on the Chinese people, and it has failed, just as could have been predicted by anyone who had studied the history of Communism.
133
The Communist system does not work; it has never worked; and it is not working in China.
And there is an easy way to prove that that statement is correct.
Off the shore of Communist China lies the islands known as Formosa or Taiwan. This separate Chinese nation has not bought the fraud known as Communism. It is basically allowing its citizens to enjoy the right to private property.
The Taiwanese government is supporting the economic system known as the Free Enterprise System.
Former Congressman Eldon Rudd of Arizona illustrated the difference between Communism and Freedom: "With 270 times the land area and 58 times the population, the Gross National Product [the G.N.P.] of Mainland China [Communist China] is only 10 times the G.N.P. of Taiwan.
The figures I have cited illustrate beyond contradiction the material abundance created by freedom's climate.
In my view, this is the smallest and least important of the remarkable differences between the People's Republic of China [meaning Communist China]
and the free government of Taiwan. The true difference is spirit -- the human condition, the absence of compulsion and regimentation, the presence of individual opportunity." 574
So the problem in China is not too much population.
It is too much Communism.
It is too much "New World Order."
So the family unit in China, the cornerstone of their civilization for centuries, has essentially been destroyed by the Communist Party.
And it was not destroyed by mistake. It was planned that way.
And the Bolshevik Communists in the Soviet Union have nearly duplicated the "success" of the Chinese Communists.
The September, 1988 Reader's Digest magazine carried an article called Should We Bail Out Gorbachev? in which they discussed life in the Soviet Union. This is one of the comments made in that article: "At least 13 million urban families still must live in communal apartments or dormitories, sharing bath, kitchen and even bedrooms with other families. In Moscow, newly constructed apartment complexes are crumbling." 575
So a great percentage of the Russian families do not have a place to live separate from other people. Married life does not seem exceptionally attractive to a young couple contemplating marriage. So, if the Communists are trying to destroy the family in Russia, one of the ways to do it would be to not construct enough government owned apartments or houses.
And that is exactly what they have done.
Also, the Soviet Union is utilizing the same infanticide that is occurring in Red China.
"Topping the world in legal abortions is the Soviet Union ~ where there are an estimated eight million annually of the 30 million worldwide.
According to the Moscow News, an astounding nine of 10 of the first pregnancies in the U.S.S.R. end in the legal killing of the unborn child.
134
The corresponding figures in the United States, reports the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York City, is one of three of the first pregnancies terminating in abortion and 1.6 million abortions annually." 576
Those who support the concept of legal abortions often claim that those who charge that life begins at conception are wrong.
Their position is that life begins at birth. But there are others who are claiming that even that date is not adequate, and that life should start at some later date.
One of these is Sir Francis Crick, a British medical doctor, a socialist and, by the way, a signer of the HUMANIST MANIFEST II. He has been quoted as saying that he foresees the day when: "no newborn infant will be declared human unless it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment. If it fails these tests, it forfeits its right to live." 577
Picture the anguish of the parents who have given life to a newborn child, deemed to be "defective" by Dr. Crick, when they discover that the good doctor has decided to "take its right to life." Imagine what this concept does to those planning a family.
And now the reader can understand what some of the Humanists think of the value of human life. Once an individual denies the existence of God, he becomes god himself, and he can decide all of those things that other people feel God used to decide. Such things as: the right to life, the right to property, etc.
But the attacks on the family in America are a little more subtle. But they are real, none the less.
In 1988, the Supreme Court decided that a husband has no right to stop his wife from having an abortion. The appeals court, which passed the decision onto the Supreme Court, had stated that the husband "has no right to veto [his wife's] decision [to have the abortion] as such [a] decision concerns only her." 578
This decision certainly had a long-lasting effect upon the marriage where both parties to the marriage contract are supposed to have a say in any decision that affects both parties.
But the latest attack on the family is a new phenomenon called "child abuse." The National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse advises there were 1.2 million reports of child abuse in 1984. Those who have paid attention to this or more current figures are suitably outraged, having been conditioned to believe that this abuse is rampant inside the American society.
However, the reason that the response to these statistics can be called hysteria, is this comment from Douglas Besharov, the first director of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, who has charged that over 60 percent of these complaints are totally unfounded. And others have said that that figure might be as high as 80 percent.
And in most of the remaining cases, the injury actually involved neglect ~ failure to provide what some social worker deemed to be adequate food, clothing or shelter -- a far cry from the sordid crimes widely publicized in the press.
One foreign nation which responded to the hysteria was Sweden, which passed a law in 1979 punishing parents who spank their children. The Parade magazine article that reported on the law mentioned the case where a father told his son not to take his younger brother out on a bicycle ride. The son disobeyed his father, and the father gave him a spanking on the buttocks.
The son marched down to the local police station and reported his dad for spanking him. A jury later found the father guilty and fined him.
In America, this hysteria has led to a horrendous intrusion of the government into private family matters, much of which appears to be unwarranted and some of which is demonstrably harmful to the children involved.
135
The definitions of "child abuse" have basically made criminals out of nearly every parent in America. A federally funded study, sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health, and released in November of 1985, defines the victims of "violence against children" as being those who have "slapped or spanked," or "pushed, grabbed, or shoved" their children. It would be difficult to find any parent in America that wouldn't be included in those categories.
The broad definition of "child abuse," which makes every parent in America into a criminal, makes sense if the observer remembers that there are people in America today who want to destroy the family. The way for them to achieve their goal is to convince the world that families abuse their children, and that "social workers" do not. Then, when the authorities come to take the children away from the parents of America, the overwhelming majority of the remainder of the citizens will accept the action as being required by the conditions.
And the traditional family, as was known in America for centuries, will exist no longer.
And some will be pleased.
Textbooks are beginning to teach that the family unit is a relic of the past. Arthur W. Calhoun wrote a book entitled, A SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY. It was a social service textbook utilized as a vehicle to educate students that the society must assume traditional responsibilities assumed by the family. Mr. Calhoun wrote: "The view is that the higher and more obligatory relation is to society rather than to the family; the family goes back to the age of savagery while the state belongs to the age of civilization. The modern individual is a world citizen served by the world, and home interests can no longer be supreme.
But as soon as the new family consisting only of the parents and the children stood forth, society saw how many were unfit for parenthood and began to realize the need for community care.
As familism of the wider sort... weakens, society has to assume a larger parenthood.
In general, society is coming more and more to accept as a duty the task of guaranteeing wholesome upbringing of the young... the child passes more and more into the custody of community experts [called teachers or social workers] who are qualified to perform the complexer functions of parenthood... and which the parents have neither the time nor knowledge to perform." 579
The family unit in America is decaying, and the thinking is that society must hire "experts" who are capable of the raising the children instead of the parents. So, suddenly "child abuse" articles started showing up in the newspapers of America. When the "experts" say that it is time to take the children away from all of the parents, the society will accept the decision because it appears to be the proper solution.
An organization known as Friends of Earth decided that the solution is to "license" parents: "If the less stringent curbs on procreation fail, someday perhaps childbearing will be deemed a punishable crime against society unless the parents hold a government license.
Or perhaps all potential parents will be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the governments issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." 580
In addition to the family causing all of this harm to children, parents are also producing too many offspring. The contention is that the world is simply over-populated. Fortunately, for the planners, the same Friends of Earth has become aware of this problem and they are offering their solution: "... we should set a goal of reducing population to a level that the planet's resources can sustain indefinitely at a decent standard of living ~ probably less than two billion." 581
When one considers that the world has approximately five billion people on it now, one can only wonder how the Friends of Earth are going to eliminate 3 billion people. So far, the solutions do not include plans to simply poison or shoot billions of people, but one can only wonder what the Friends of Earth will offer the world if the people do not voluntarily solve this purported problem.
136
The organization does not rule out the use of force to stop the "population explosion," however. They continued: "Ultimately, those policies may have to embrace coercion by governments to curb breeding." 582
It doesn't take much imagination to envision the size of a government that would have the ability to prevent every couple in the world from producing unwanted pregnancies.
Nor does it take superior intelligence to see what the next step would be should all of these "voluntary" methods fail. If the world population will not voluntarily stop producing too many children, then coercive measures must be employed.
But, it can be assumed that the Friends of the Earth be lieve that those 3 billion people will understand when they come to exterminate them. Don't forget, it is for the good of humanity!
But in the future, the parent who believes that he or she is capable of raising children will become a criminal. One organization that sees that situation occurring in the future is the World Future Society, which wrote this: "The adult criminal of the twenty-first century may be less common than his twentieth century counterpart, in part because of the way society treats children from the moment they are born.
Parental care in the year 2000 may be different.
from today's, and better, since by then the movement to license or certify parents may well be under way."
In most cases, certified couples would be allowed to have their own natural children. In some instances, however, genetic scanning may find that some women and men can produce "super" babies but are not well suited to rear them.
These couples would be licensed to breed, but will give up their children to other people licensed to rear them.
Child breeding and rearing may be considered too important to be left to chance.
"... wanted children will have fewer environmental reasons to turn to crime, and controlled breeding will result in fewer biological reasons for crime." 583 The attack on the family in America has taken several clever and unique twists. The family destroyers have resorted to cleverness to disguise their original intent: they do not want the parents to know that the destruction of the family is their goal. So they conceal their purposes by quietly causing problems that create intense pressures on the family.
One of the methods utilized is that of inflation.
Inflation is simply defined by a dictionary as an increase in the money supply, causing prices to go up. That means that whoever controls the money supply controls the price level. Increase the money supply, and prices rise. Decrease the money supply and prices go down (called Deflation.) Once Inflation or Deflation has been documented, the government economists point with pride at the supposed perpetrators: the public. They never direct their attention at the real culprit in America: the privately owned Federal Reserve system.
This private banking establishment has complete control over the quantity of money in circulation. Therefore, they have the ability to create Inflation or Deflation whenever they choose to do so.
The rising price level without a corresponding increase in a family's income causes the wife in a family unit who has chosen to care for her own child at home to leave the nurturing of the children to others in order to seek gainful employment so that she can increase the family's earnings. The parents are forced to place their children in a government run school. This enables the planners to teach the children what they want taught at an earlier age. And it places the mother in a position where she sees less and less of her children, and the children see more and more of the government trained substitute "parents."
137
The planners have been extremely successful, as the number of working mothers has been steadily increasing.
According to a report issued in 1987, more than 44 percent of women work outside the home, compared to only 32 percent in 1960. Of women with children under one year of age, close to 50 percent are currently employed, a figure that has doubled since 1970. 584
But, what happens to the child when they are placed into day care centers? Are they better off? One group of individuals who feel that they are not are the doctors inside the American Academy of Pediatrics who have reported that the children placed in these centers are subject to all sorts of diseases caused by bacteria, viruses and parasites. They are more than 12 times as likely to catch flu viruses and 15 to 20 times more likely to catch other diseases than children under maternal care.
So the day care center has a negative impact on the health of a child placed there by a working mother. When the child gets sick, the mother must take time off from her job to care for the child, or to place the child in the hands of the medical fraternity. If the mother gets paid by the hour, and only gets paid when she is on the job, this frequent sickness costs the family additional revenue. And the only time that the mother sees her child, other than evenings or weekends, is when the child is sick and not feeling well. This does not tend to support warm mother-child feelings.
But there is another lesser known problem when the mother is not directly involved in the care of the child. Until fairly recently, the assumption that care by the mother was the best kind of child care went unchallenged. John Bowlby's widely acclaimed book entitled, MATERNAL CARE AND MENTAL HEALTH, published in 1951, concluded that the "warm, intimate, and continuous" care of the mother or permanent mother substitute was essential to the "development of character and mental health." He called the absence of this mother-child relationship "maternal deprivation" and said that it was likely to result in "maladjustment of the child."
This was the consensus view of the vast majority of psychologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, and the general public until the medical and professional organizations capitulated to the demands of the feminist movement in the 1970s.
The continuing debate over Dr. Jay Belsky's recent "heresy"
is testimony to the power of the feminist/day care lobby in academic and professional circles. Belsky, a professor of child psychology at Pennsylvania State University, was, a decade ago, one of the influential voices that saw no harm in institutional child care. Now, he says, convincing research shows that non-maternal care for more than 20 hours per week for children under a year old is a "risk factor." Day care at that young age can impede secure parent/child relationships and lead to rebellious and aggressive behavior, or shy and withdrawn behavior in the preschool and early years. His views have caused him much grief, as colleagues and feminists have come down hard on him for his views. They have impugned his research, his credentials, and his motives. 585
Even Dr. Benjamin Spock, certainly no "conservative" in other matters, has also resisted the push for group child care, especially before the age of three. He has taken a position that appears to be out of character for him. He has written: "It is stressful for children to have to cope with groups, with strangers, with people outside the family." 586
And another "certified Harvard liberal," Professor Burton White, warns parents: "Unless you have a very good reason, I urge you not to delegate the primary child-rearing task to anyone else during your child's first three years of life." 587
But the debate is certain to continue. Those who want to destroy the family will continue to urge mothers to leave the home and "become fulfilled in the workplace." When the mother goes into the workplace to "become fulfilled," or to increase the family's income, she leaves the care of the children to others.
Those who warn against such practices will continue to be scorned by the feminists and others who have a hidden agenda: they want to destroy the family.
138
Another subtle pressure against marriage was concealed inside a headline in a local newspaper that read: "New tax laws to increase 'marriage tax' for many." The article defined the term "marriage tax" as a term used to: "describe the extra tax burden paid by a married couple when compared with the tax paid by two single people with the same total income." 588
So, those individuals smart enough to know how the tax laws work against them decide not to get married.
And in some cases, the destruction of the family has not gone unnoticed. Newsweek magazine of January 12, 1981, carried an article by Dr. Jonathan Kellerman, a psychologist, and author. He wrote this: "However, when one examines the role government has played in its relationship to the family, it is clear that not only has there been no support, on the contrary there has been a systematic erosion of the family, perpetuated by executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.
The trend of the last two decades toward more government intervention and control has carried with it a clear message to families: you are not competent to decide how to live your life -- we know better." 589 And some in America have discovered that the psychologist was correct. An article in the Arizona Republic reported that "Family life [was! harmed by government, poll says." The article quoted pollster George Gallup, who said that: "nearly half of those who responded to his organization's 1980 survey on the American family believe the federal government has an unfavorable influence on family life." 590 And the government is once again using the tax laws to discriminate against families with full time mothers. The present tax code favors families whose mothers enter the work force over families with full-time mothers. Those parents who do not send the mother out into the work force must subsidize those who do.
Secondly, the tax laws are weighted heavily against parental choice in child care. Most surveys indicate that working parents generally prefer leaving their child with relatives, neighbors or friends. Current tax laws do not recognize these forms of child care as legitimate; thus, parents who choose to use them do not receive an income-tax credit for the costs of child care. So many parents choose to have the government assist them in the costs of their child care by providing a tax credit and give their children over to the government to raise them.
And lastly, current or proposed legislation concerning child care tax credits discriminate against the many church-related day care facilities. These laws prohibit funding for any child care facility "unless all religious symbols and artifacts are covered or have been removed."
A classic example of the unrestrained use of government force against a child care facility occurred in 1984, when the State of Texas attempted to completely shut down three children's homes run by Pastor Lester Roloff. He, like Pastor Silevin before him, refused to allow the state to license his homes for the children who had been voluntarily placed there by their parents. The state of Texas went to court, but in 1981 a state district judge denied its request for an injunction against the Pastor's homes, concluding that the licensing procedure as applied to the church running them would violate the constitutions of both the United States and Texas.
The federal Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
However, the state Supreme Court rejected the church's contention that licensing would interfere with religious freedom.
The Chief Justice did not object to the quality of the care provided by the Roloff homes; his concern was the simple fact that they would not submit to licensing. He noted that the homes have "a good record of high quality service,"
and that they could "easily satisfy licensing requirements, but had chosen not to do so."
So the state wanted certain restrictions on the care provided children in Pastor Roloffs homes. Several of those restrictions were so incredible that they show that the major reason the state went after the child care facilities was simply that they were too successful.
The first of these restrictions was (not a complete list):
139
1. "You should not threaten a child with the displeasure of Deity."
In other words, you couldn't tell a child that he was a sinner. Remember that these children had been placed in these homes because they had become disciplinary problems to their parents. The parents, who had seen their children become involved in prostitution, drugs and criminal activity, had turned to the Pastor for help in turning their child around. They turned to him because he was a Christian Pastor, and because he had demonstrated success in hundreds of similar cases before. These parents loved their children and wanted them to stop their criminal and anti-social behavior.
They cared for them enough to voluntarily place them in a program that had proven successful. Only a very small percentage of these children had been placed in these homes by the court system.
One of the reasons the Pastor was successful was because he turned the children to religion. But the state told him he could not use that as a method of correcting the child.
The second restriction was:
2. "The institution shall see that each child is supplied with personal clothing suitable to the child's age and size. It shall be comparable to the clothing of other children in the community."
The Pastor and his staff felt that much of the clothing the children were wearing was too suggestive and improper. So they attempted to provide the children with modest clothing less stimulating and provocative. They felt that this restriction would place the children back into the clothing that in many cases had caused them to have problems before their arrival at the Roloff homes.
The third restriction was:
3. "Children should be encouraged to form friendships with persons outside the institution."
It would be fair to observe that such friendships were frequently what brought the children to the homes in the first place.
The fourth restriction was:
4. "The opinions and recommendations of the children in care shall be considered in the development and evaluation of the program and activities. The procedure for this shall be documented."
Letting the inmates run the prison sounds like an excellent idea until the prisoners suggest that the restraining bars should be removed. Many of these children had become discipline problems mainly because they had decided that they could best run their own lives. When this determination had failed, the parents placed them into Pastor Roloff s homes so that they would learn some discipline. But the state wanted them to learn how to run their own lives again.
The purpose of all of this incredible pressure on the Roloff homes appeared to be the desire of the state to weaken the ability of the Roloff homes to be successful with these troubled children. A secondary purpose appeared to be the desire to weaken the family, and encourage the state to devise methods that would remove the control of the children from the parents and to give them over to the state.
Perhaps the role model that the family destroyers want to emulate is the Soviet Union, where enormous pressures are intentionally placed upon the Russian family.
Parade magazine carried an article about an American family which had returned to Russia in 1987 after having lived there in the late 1960's. The wife in the marriage has written a book about modern life in that nation, and these are some of her observations.
"... the average young married woman in the Soviet Union... is a prisoner of the Soviet custom and doctrine, which calls for a wife, without her husband's help, to perform the tough, rough, rugged
140
household chores -- the laundry, the cleaning, the cooking, the moving, the shopping, the child-caring -- all of these in addition to holding down her own job outside the home eight hours a day." 591
In Russia, work is a duty of its citizens. That obligation has been written into their Constitution.
Article 12 reads as follows: "Work in the U.S.S.R. is a duty and a matter of honour for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: 'He who does not work, neither shall he eat.'
The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.'"
It would appear from a cursory examination of these sentences that work in Russia is for men only. The first paragraph refers to work being a male occupation: "HE who does not work...," and the second says: "... according to HIS ability." However, the first paragraph says that "Work is a duty... for every able-bodied citizen." Women are "able bodied citizens" just like men. Therefore, the Constitution makes it clear that this work requirement is for both sexes. Women must toil for the Russian economy as well as men.
This means that married women are obligated to work as well as single women. The fact that the married woman must work for the state obviously leaves the children free to be raised by the government. And that is the desired result of that provision in the Constitution.
And the fact that the married woman must work for the society means that she has less time to spend with her family.
The article continued with some of the obstacles that the Russian economy puts on the wife during the typical day: "... the Soviet woman... rises early, not much past 6, prepares breakfast for the family, gets the children off to school, goes to her own work. During lunch, it's hurry up and wait. Instead of enjoying her breather, she bolts down her food and races to the nearest store, where she waits and waits and waits to buy whatever approximates the needs of her family.
Almost always there's a shortage of meat, fruit, vegetables, soap and quality products of anything."
The Soviet economic system, called Communism, has been proven to be a failure by 6000 years of experience. The Communist system destroys the incentive to produce and the population suffers from the lack of consumption goods. No Communist would be bold enough to admit that it is the system that has failed. So contrived explanations are offered to explain the shortages.
There is no food because a "drought" reduced farm yields.
"Military equipment spending priorities" have replaced production quotas for consumption goods.
It is certainly conceivable that those in charge want the married family to suffer these pressures, so that few in the married population will be happy. The entire system is intentionally designed to be a failure, and no one would dare correct it.
It is clear that pressure on the family is the desired product of Communism.
The article confirmed this with this comment: "No wonder so many Soviet men drink, sulk and accuse their wives of frigidity and indifference. No wonder the Soviet Union is so rife with divorce."
The married woman in Russia is obviously too tired to care for her husband, and the result becomes predictable: a rising divorce rate.
And no one blames those who have intentionally created an economic system that was certain to put those pressures on the family. The planners have experienced their desired result: marriage has become the least desired relationship in Russia.
Perhaps the entire scenario was placed into perspective on the side of the government "experts" by B. F. Skinner, the chairman of the Harvard Department of Psychology, who wrote this about his book
141
entitled, BEYOND FREEDOM AND DIGNITY: "My book is an effort to demonstrate how things go bad when you make a fetish out of individual freedom and dignity.
If you insist that individual rights are the 'summum bonum,' [meaning the highest good,] then the whole structure of society falls down." 592
So, those who want to destroy the family want the world to turn the society over to them.
And those running the society continue to destroy it.
The strategy is not new. In fact, it has been the strategy of this conspiracy for centuries.
They cause the problem.
Then they solve the problem with more government.
And the people are convinced that their solution is desirable, generally because that is the only solution offered.
And the end result is less freedom for the people.
And it works nearly every time.
142
0 comments: