Friday, November 27, 2009

Valueless Children


The message on the British Humanist Association poster

Oh the hypocrisy! What is missing here is of course is the label "valueless child".

The biggest threat to children in today’s society is the absence of values, or in Gordon Brown’s words, the absence of a “moral compass”.
The British Humanist Association wants parents to be absent from children’s moral growth. This poster identifies the core values of BHA as a direct attack on the family, the distancing of children from parents. Study after study relates children’s unhappiness, failure in education, high pregnancy and sexual decease rates, failure in forming relationships, crime, alcohol, drug use, psychological problems, etc, etc to a failure in parents to pass on values.
h/t In Hoc

11 comments:

Dan said...

I saw an article about this in The Times or maybe The Telegraph. It's ironic, the boy and girl used in the advert are from a devout Christian family!

George said...

Frankly, it is the British Humanist Association that shows itself to be 'Value-less', ie has NO VALUES and is thus morally bankrupt, clutching at straws to try to maintain some public profile, but is losing ground at a rapid rate and failing dismally!

To 'use' children in their misguided poster advertising campaign is contemptible. This will simply alienate more people from these 'potato heads'!

Will our Prime Minister EVER do anything to step across the stupid politically correct and imaginary 'line in the sand' and make a stand for putting the moral backbone back into Britain and give our children a chance.

pelerin said...

Regarding the passing on of values by parents to children, there is sadly no guarantee that the children will not later reject these same values which they may have received growing up.

One of my sons once said to me 'It's alright for you mum - you chose your religion. I had no choice.' It seems natural for children to rebel especially during their teenage years. They are in the process of finding out who they are. If they are not brought up with a moral compass, then against what can they rebel?

Malcolm Kemp said...

One aspect of my life as an itinerant professional musician occasionally brings me into contact with Humanists. The general consensus amongst people who come into contact with them in that context (even those who are not obviously particularly religious) is that humanists are extremely intolerant and narrow-minded.

Mike Cliffson Pamelez said...

they hate kids, it spills over

wanted to email this rather than comment
cf exlifesite news, sorry if you already blogged on this
New U.K. Bill Requires Homeschooled Children be Registered with Authorities

LSNTODAY'S HEADLINES | SEND NEWS TIPS | DONATE

SHARE: E-mail E-MAIL Print PRINT

By Hilary White

LONDON, November 26, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British government announced last week their acceptance of the Badman Review of home education and introduced the new Children, Schools and Families Bill that will require home educated children to be registered with the local authorities.

Undertaken by Graham Badman, the former Director of Children's Services at Kent County Council, the review of home education has been denounced by homeschoolers as a "stitch-up" and a "statist" piece of government propaganda.

Annette Taberner of the homeschool support organisation Education Otherwise, who met twice with Graham Badman during the course of the review, said, "In a rapidly changing world, government could learn much from the good practice of home educators - instead it has decided to bring forward legislation that will stamp it out."

Homeschooling families were furious at the review's results and say the new bill will mean the effective end of the rights of the family in education. The bill will follow recommendations that homeschooling families be subjected to spot-checks by local authorities, and that authorities can interview homeschooled children without the presence of their parents.

Taberner said, "To suggest parents can continue to home educate but then give powers to local authorities to enter our homes and interview our children without an adult being present is just extraordinary. This is nothing short of an attempt to regulate the private lives of people.

"It is a very bad day for civil liberties in this country."



Read related LSN coverage:

U.K. Government Tightens Leash on Homeschoolers: Fears Raised of Germany-Style Clampdown
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09061102.html

Back to Top Back to Top

nickbris said...

British Humanist Association.A bunch of misguided individuals .

We just have to hope they are all on DNA database.

gemoftheocean said...

Hear, hear.

Would you ever hear any liberal say: "I'll let my child decide for himself how many sweets he can eat, if he doesn't want vegetables, that's fine?"

Would you ever hear any liberal say:

"I'll let my kid choose for himself if he wants to learn to read or write or not."

Would you ever hear any liberal say: "I'll let my child decides if he wants to save the whales or not."

No.

Even if the parent claims he's letting the child choose, by default the parent is letting HOLLYWOOD and OTHER people choose for their child. Nature abhors a vaccum, in in the case of a rootless child, the worst of the surrounding culture will have much more sway.

They're merely allowing OTHER people to have more influence on their children.

Father Gareth Jones said...

Personally I like these campaigns, as they get people talking about God and religion in a new way and the Humanists pay for it! Last years campaign, 'there is PROBABLY no God, now stop worrying and enjoy yourself', was however a rather infantile attempt to undermine monotheistic religion, but it had a counter effect. 'Probably' is hardly a definitive statement, and not one I would have thought a hardline atheist like Dawkins would want to put his name to... but he did! Saul, Saul why do you persecute me!?!?!

This years campaign is a little more clever and wickedly subtle as it utilises the innocent (a child) and uses a subconscious weapon of attack on ones deeply held morals, fears and suspicions. The hidden message here is of course, that to give a child a religious 'label' is to somehow take away the dignity of the freedom he/she was born with, and to take away a childs dignity and freedom is of course an abuse. So in this campaign we have the subtle notion of abuse, together with the image of an annocent child used in a public advertising campaign aimed at undermining religion, but particularly Christianity. This is a campaign which is aimed at breeding suspiscion and fear (though subconsciously) in the minds of the unsuspecting public.

I need say no more, but read between the lines, the message is not what it seems and is I think dangerously damaging. Of course labelling a child an 'atheist' or 'humanist', is perfectly okay, is'nt it?

Countering this campaign, Churchads.net is running a superb national scheme aimed at putting the Christmas message on bus shelters, radio and other media. Their resources are excellent and can be found here: http://www.churchads.net/.

Bill of L.A. said...

Children have far more to fear from the sewer of popular culture than from organized religion.

Matthaeus said...

Due to a busy week, I have just been 'catching up' with various blogs that I haven't visited for some days.

What struck me was how this post immediately precedes one about the latest report on child abuse in Ireland. The obvious connection is what happens when a society does not value its children.

In the Irish case, children were quietly hidden away in orphanages, industrial schools and other institutions often because they were seen as valueless by their families. Some men, who had grown up with these attitudes, some of whom were priests and brothers, also saw these children as valueless and so as objects to be used in the pursuit of their own sexual depravity.

Do the humanists really believe that by devaluing children, they are going to achieve anything better? I wonder, if they continue to get their way, will we, fifty years from now, be hearing and discussing reports and trials of paedophiles and abusers in infamous humanist institutions???

Elizabeth said...

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a crèche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period.. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham 's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina ).. Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem ( Dr. Spock 's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.