Honor thy father and thy mother
By Alisa Craddock
web posted February 9, 2009
Did you know that there is no word in Hebrew for parent? I learned that from a learned Rabbi, Daniel Lapin (America’s Real War, p. 180). There is no word for parent. There is a word for PARENTS. In Hebrew, according to Rabbi Lapin, when words appear only in the plural, a specific message is intended. The word horim, the Hebrew word for parents is plural. There is no singular. There are supposed to be two, a mother and a father. Thus is the natural family established by God.
I think if you asked most kids, even kids from a bad family, if they wanted a family, they’d say ‘yes’. Some might wish they had a better family, or that they were born into a different family, a more loving family, a family where mommy isn’t drunk or daddy isn’t violent or mommy and daddy are more attentive and less self-absorbed—whatever their environment, children want and need a family with two loving parents (a mom and a dad) and siblings. That is where they learn to be civilized—where they learn how to love and be loved, how to share and make sacrifices for each other, and where they learn cooperation. Few families are idyllic, especially in a world as messed up as ours is. There are so many negative influences (bad parents being one of them) that leave many grown children wholly unprepared for the demands of child-rearing themselves.
But sociologists almost universally (and often grudgingly) insist that an intact family, with a mother and a father, is the best environment for the rearing of mature, well-adjusted children to adulthood. (The numbers don’t lie, much to the chagrin of those with conflicting views.) There simply is no substitute for the natural family (a mother, father and one or more children living together). The alternatives can never, and will never, be as nurturing and civilizing, nor as wholesome, as the love of natural parents because, for most people, no one will ever love a child like his parents. Single parent families (most being matriarchal) produce children with a gnawing unmet need (for a father, and also for a mothers attention) that leaves them emotionally damaged, needy, immature, angry and lonely. Most kids growing up with a mother but no father will grow up in poverty—emotionally and materially, and will suffer additional deprivations as well, many never able to break the circle of poverty they were born into or its profoundly damaging emotional and psychological effects. Most, in addition, without the firm hand of a father’s authority, will get in trouble with the law before adulthood, and may continue that pattern their entire lives. Again, the numbers don’t lie. These facts are well known and have been well documented, and yet they are frequently ignored or buried because to address the problem of broken families or single motherhood, to look at the untold emotional harm that people have incurred because of the destruction of family life, you have to go against the prevailing liberal dogma. Part of that dogma says that all the evil in the world comes from patriarchy and so we must establish new social structures to replace the old established ones.
That agenda was bluntly revealed in January by United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) representative Arie Hoekman, speaking at a colloquium in Mexico City, who declared "In the eyes of conservative forces, [high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births] mean that the family is in crisis," he said. "In crisis? More than a crisis, we are in the presence of a weakening of the patriarchal structure, as a result of the disappearance of the economic base that sustains it and because of the rise of new values centered in the recognition of fundamental human rights."
So, the breakdown of the family is a triumph of human rights. What rights is he talking about that require the breakdown of the family? The UNFPA has wreaked havoc on the social underpinnings of civilization, advocating and supporting forced or unwanted sterilizations of poor women in Latin American countries, in its support of China’s one child policy, in its withholding of food and emergency disaster relief on condition that those countries in such crises also accept “reproductive health services” (which is UNFPA code for abortion and contraception), by filling clinics in Africa and other poor nations with plenty of condoms, but not penicillin and other medications needed by the poor in those countries. Is this the triumph of human rights? Exactly what rights are being protected here? And those poor, sad children of broken homes, emotionally troubled and desolate. Do you think they regard their freedom from having fathers, from patriarchy, as a right? How many “programs” have governments had to come up with to attempt to compensate for the emotional and psychological injury done to children while we try to restructure human civilization without fatherhood, without masculinity, without a patriarch to honor, revere, and emulate. The increase in violent and anti-social behavior from both sexes, and the increase in poverty among women speaks volumes for the so-called “success” of their efforts. But, hey, at least they ended the “evil” of patriarchy, right? So there, St. Paul…
The UN Declaration on Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that, ‘the family is the natural fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state. It further states that “men and women of full age, without any limitation, due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” But just as our own Constitution and Bill of Rights is under attack by liberals here at home, so also is the UNDHR under attack by liberals across the globe. Given that absolute state control is the ultimate aim of global government, and that destruction of faith and family are part of its socialist agenda, it should not be a surprise that it is being accomplished despite the UNDHR. Nor should it surprise that an “evil” should have been discovered in the traditional family, an injustice that needs to be rectified, so that a justification could be made for the social havoc their outcome-based efforts have produced. “Protection by society and the state” now gets twisted to mean a sprawling welfare state and protecting homosexuals’ rights to adopt and raise children. But when did the focus turn away from what is best for the children and begin to focus on the angry demands of radical feminists and homosexuals?
The UNFPA and IPP (International Planned Parenthood) are the so-called population control arms of the United Nations. They work (whether it is stated or not—actions speak louder than words) to realize Margaret Sanger’s vision of a world where the ability of what she viewed as “inferior” races to breed is controlled by government policies and programs that use deception and a feigned concern for the welfare of women to elicit their cooperation. She also had another agenda, not as well known:
Margaret Sanger openly stated her belief that the marriage bed was “the most degenerative influence in the social order..." (Woman and the New Race 1,1922. ) Her plans to destroy the institution of marriage have been wildly successful, to the detriment of children (and men and women) everywhere. “Our objective,” she stated, “is unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children ... [Women must have the right] to live ... to love ... to be lazy ... to be an unmarried mother ... to create ... to destroy ... (The Woman Rebel, Vol I, No 1.) So here is the truth of the great leap for human rights—fornication, sodomy, power over life and death, laziness and the public dole, absolute freedom from any unwanted responsibility or any Commandment of God. Congratulations, Maggie. You’ve succeeded wildly. Sexual self-indulgence has become the hallmark of “liberty”. Our entire civilization is burning while Caesar is fiddling around. 
Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. She may be contacted at alisa.craddock@hushmail.com.
