alwyn
Padawan Learner
<quote>SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) — Before authorities raided their west Texas retreat, members of a secretive polygamous church spent decades holding as tightly to their intense privacy as the Scriptures guiding their way of life.
Contact with outsiders was limited. Media inquiries were rejected with either stone-faced silence or a polite "no comment."
But after Texas officials removed 416 children belonging to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the sect fired up the public relations machine.<end/quote>
I posted this on my blog earlier today: From: http://quantumpeace.blogspot.com/
Here in the states, over in God Fearin' Texas in the USofA , we are hearing reports about some 400 odd children who are currently languishing in the custody of the Law through having been judicially separated from their mothers. The children were the progeny of an offshoot of the Mormon religion —FLDS; apparently their fathers believed in (among other things) multiple wives, and marrying younger girls to older men. The story is that a teenage girl called out for help, saying she was forced to wed an older man against her will, and have two children by him by the age of 15. The compound was raided, fathers were carted off to jail, and the mothers and children were staying in custody for awhile. I can heartily agree with breaking this sort of thing up; early (and forced) marriage is certainly not respecting a child's right to both come of age and have a choice in one's life-partner. However, it was recently decided to separate the mothers and children—for their own good, of course. Some of the clearly devastated mothers broke long-standing traditions of years of social isolation to come onto TV to talk about being torn away from their kids. From what I understand of the situation, many of the mothers were born into that system, and were also abused by it. Does it make sense to punish these women by taking away their children? Isn't this a little like blaming the victim?
It makes no sense whatsoever to separate a mother and child, if both are victims of trauma. These people, who have been raised to believe that outsiders are a threat to their way of life, will certainly not feel any better about this society, especially since it's fundamental fears have now been newly-founded, as it were. I fear we may find that there is more trouble created as a reaction to this poorly planned intervention—when you separate a loving mother from a loved child, you just create more damage to the psyches of both, and this can in no way be considered a positive effect. If society truly has a better way, surely we can properly educate these now doubly traumatized families. If you must heal the children, you must not steal the children; rather we must find a way to heal these bonds by nurturing both mother and child together. We must certainly educate their men about genetics, at the very least! We must educate them to respect a woman's choice, and a woman's value. It is only in this way that the cycle of abuse and violence is broken.
It is an ancient Chinese wisdom passed down from healer to healer— in order to heal the son, you must treat the mother. To cure the daughter, you must heal the father. You don't treat a mother by ripping her away from her child, any more than you treat a child by ripping it away from it's mother. Pornographic perpetrators of violence do these things. Enlightened societies do not. An enlightened society will treat mother and child, father and daughter. An enlightened society will stand close enough to monitor both relationships; if there is a fear of harm, they will be present to guide and lead by example into a better life. If succor is needed for the child, it is needed for the parents as well, and the parent child bond should be sacred.
If a 'so called' society insists on irrevocably altering this fundamental relationship, it will do so to it's peril; there is a natural backlash that occurs as the displaced children come of age, and it is these psychically fractured and emotionally traumatized children who are easily swayed into acts of violence and mayhem, and are easy prey for cannon fodder for the corporate wars of state.
Nazis, fascists and other totalitarians always attack this fundamental familial bond, for that is the bedrock of the corporate, as opposed to the natural state. The child's natural bond is to family, and the family's to the child. The fascist graft can only succeed when this core value is subverted. When you rip a family apart, you commit psychic rape and torture. When you go to war, it's manifestly physical rape and torture. The looks of the traumatized are glamorously portrayed, like Princess Di, or Brittany Spears, or kept to lower corners of the paper, another statistic of Iraqi orphaned, or splashed across the headlines, like the FLDS. The traumatized can be made to switch this subverted allegiance to the state or other authority, but it still doesn't make it ethical, or even Right. (That's why we Left, for the jokester activists among ya.).
An enlightened society would not compound the error that the issue addressed in the first place; If these people needed help, then so be it, it is societies' long stated duty to help them, but these women needed rescue, they did not need to lose their children, and have their social virginity (like their physical virginity) sacrificed to fear one more time.
History will judge the success of a society based upon how it treated it's citizens, it's children, and it's resources. (Surely we will be judged as fools for a long time to come, if current events are any indication. Surely there is still time to alter our fundamental condition of folly). Jesus, who is held up as a mark of behavior in Texas, said "suffer the little children to come unto me." I think that meant we should look out for the kids. "What you do to the least of them, you do to me also". I think that means look out for the parents, or the poor and traumatized. I'm pretty sure that "I give you dominion over all the earth" doesn't mean 'I made you the final arbiter and overlord in this life and the next'. Dominion is derived from 'Lord's property' , so we're rather caretakers, aren't we? So, we could very well ask 'how well do you keep your valleys that shelter you? How well do you keep the people who are around you?' We are all linked together on this little tiny ship of Life, our Titanic, as it were. We still have time to slow down our ship of state, or step back from the precipice, and make sure we act in keeping with these fundamental commandments—which all major religions of both the East and West claim sacred . We must keep these commandments at the peril of our Souls, or so we are told. Perhaps we need more than lip service?
Over in Palestine and Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan, life is a little more stark— there's bombs and madness to contend with. They lose their children every day in ways I can't even begin to comprehend. Surely we can approach these conflicts with the same intent. Heal the children, heal the mothers, heal the fathers. Heal by grouping together, and upholding the family unit, not by separating it and causing more chaos with separation, with guns and warfare.
The aboriginals of Australia reputedly tell a tale of Time, which stretches back in their oral tradition for a span of 30,000 years or so. They say one day a rift opened in the sky, and these 'interdimensional beings' came pouring through, and this is where our troubles started, and this is the cause of our wars. It's an interesting story, and bears some thought. What if it were true? What if beings that we couldn't really quite see were masquerading here on earth? What if they could only influence hearts and minds? What better way to conquer than to create situations to get the native inhabitants of the world to look at each other, as if each were the enemy? What better way to ineradicably alter an environment than by the wholesale and misbegotten production of war? There is a war on, it just may not be the one we think we are in.
When will this madness stop? When will we stop it? Is it really so hard, to take care of the children? Surely we can all agree to this. Surely we can find a better way. There's still a little time, and still a little place, a time to Stop, and think about it. Take the mother from the child? No, that leads to war. That's so old hat. Don't you know, in a more enlightened society, they take care of the women and children first. Not just your child, not just my child, but all the children, now, all the mothers now, and all the world in time. This is our dominion, this is our care, and this is our keeping.
We can lay down our weapons, and join our arms
In quantum peace
Contact with outsiders was limited. Media inquiries were rejected with either stone-faced silence or a polite "no comment."
But after Texas officials removed 416 children belonging to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the sect fired up the public relations machine.<end/quote>
I posted this on my blog earlier today: From: http://quantumpeace.blogspot.com/
Here in the states, over in God Fearin' Texas in the USofA , we are hearing reports about some 400 odd children who are currently languishing in the custody of the Law through having been judicially separated from their mothers. The children were the progeny of an offshoot of the Mormon religion —FLDS; apparently their fathers believed in (among other things) multiple wives, and marrying younger girls to older men. The story is that a teenage girl called out for help, saying she was forced to wed an older man against her will, and have two children by him by the age of 15. The compound was raided, fathers were carted off to jail, and the mothers and children were staying in custody for awhile. I can heartily agree with breaking this sort of thing up; early (and forced) marriage is certainly not respecting a child's right to both come of age and have a choice in one's life-partner. However, it was recently decided to separate the mothers and children—for their own good, of course. Some of the clearly devastated mothers broke long-standing traditions of years of social isolation to come onto TV to talk about being torn away from their kids. From what I understand of the situation, many of the mothers were born into that system, and were also abused by it. Does it make sense to punish these women by taking away their children? Isn't this a little like blaming the victim?
It makes no sense whatsoever to separate a mother and child, if both are victims of trauma. These people, who have been raised to believe that outsiders are a threat to their way of life, will certainly not feel any better about this society, especially since it's fundamental fears have now been newly-founded, as it were. I fear we may find that there is more trouble created as a reaction to this poorly planned intervention—when you separate a loving mother from a loved child, you just create more damage to the psyches of both, and this can in no way be considered a positive effect. If society truly has a better way, surely we can properly educate these now doubly traumatized families. If you must heal the children, you must not steal the children; rather we must find a way to heal these bonds by nurturing both mother and child together. We must certainly educate their men about genetics, at the very least! We must educate them to respect a woman's choice, and a woman's value. It is only in this way that the cycle of abuse and violence is broken.
It is an ancient Chinese wisdom passed down from healer to healer— in order to heal the son, you must treat the mother. To cure the daughter, you must heal the father. You don't treat a mother by ripping her away from her child, any more than you treat a child by ripping it away from it's mother. Pornographic perpetrators of violence do these things. Enlightened societies do not. An enlightened society will treat mother and child, father and daughter. An enlightened society will stand close enough to monitor both relationships; if there is a fear of harm, they will be present to guide and lead by example into a better life. If succor is needed for the child, it is needed for the parents as well, and the parent child bond should be sacred.
If a 'so called' society insists on irrevocably altering this fundamental relationship, it will do so to it's peril; there is a natural backlash that occurs as the displaced children come of age, and it is these psychically fractured and emotionally traumatized children who are easily swayed into acts of violence and mayhem, and are easy prey for cannon fodder for the corporate wars of state.
Nazis, fascists and other totalitarians always attack this fundamental familial bond, for that is the bedrock of the corporate, as opposed to the natural state. The child's natural bond is to family, and the family's to the child. The fascist graft can only succeed when this core value is subverted. When you rip a family apart, you commit psychic rape and torture. When you go to war, it's manifestly physical rape and torture. The looks of the traumatized are glamorously portrayed, like Princess Di, or Brittany Spears, or kept to lower corners of the paper, another statistic of Iraqi orphaned, or splashed across the headlines, like the FLDS. The traumatized can be made to switch this subverted allegiance to the state or other authority, but it still doesn't make it ethical, or even Right. (That's why we Left, for the jokester activists among ya.).
An enlightened society would not compound the error that the issue addressed in the first place; If these people needed help, then so be it, it is societies' long stated duty to help them, but these women needed rescue, they did not need to lose their children, and have their social virginity (like their physical virginity) sacrificed to fear one more time.
History will judge the success of a society based upon how it treated it's citizens, it's children, and it's resources. (Surely we will be judged as fools for a long time to come, if current events are any indication. Surely there is still time to alter our fundamental condition of folly). Jesus, who is held up as a mark of behavior in Texas, said "suffer the little children to come unto me." I think that meant we should look out for the kids. "What you do to the least of them, you do to me also". I think that means look out for the parents, or the poor and traumatized. I'm pretty sure that "I give you dominion over all the earth" doesn't mean 'I made you the final arbiter and overlord in this life and the next'. Dominion is derived from 'Lord's property' , so we're rather caretakers, aren't we? So, we could very well ask 'how well do you keep your valleys that shelter you? How well do you keep the people who are around you?' We are all linked together on this little tiny ship of Life, our Titanic, as it were. We still have time to slow down our ship of state, or step back from the precipice, and make sure we act in keeping with these fundamental commandments—which all major religions of both the East and West claim sacred . We must keep these commandments at the peril of our Souls, or so we are told. Perhaps we need more than lip service?
Over in Palestine and Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan, life is a little more stark— there's bombs and madness to contend with. They lose their children every day in ways I can't even begin to comprehend. Surely we can approach these conflicts with the same intent. Heal the children, heal the mothers, heal the fathers. Heal by grouping together, and upholding the family unit, not by separating it and causing more chaos with separation, with guns and warfare.
The aboriginals of Australia reputedly tell a tale of Time, which stretches back in their oral tradition for a span of 30,000 years or so. They say one day a rift opened in the sky, and these 'interdimensional beings' came pouring through, and this is where our troubles started, and this is the cause of our wars. It's an interesting story, and bears some thought. What if it were true? What if beings that we couldn't really quite see were masquerading here on earth? What if they could only influence hearts and minds? What better way to conquer than to create situations to get the native inhabitants of the world to look at each other, as if each were the enemy? What better way to ineradicably alter an environment than by the wholesale and misbegotten production of war? There is a war on, it just may not be the one we think we are in.
When will this madness stop? When will we stop it? Is it really so hard, to take care of the children? Surely we can all agree to this. Surely we can find a better way. There's still a little time, and still a little place, a time to Stop, and think about it. Take the mother from the child? No, that leads to war. That's so old hat. Don't you know, in a more enlightened society, they take care of the women and children first. Not just your child, not just my child, but all the children, now, all the mothers now, and all the world in time. This is our dominion, this is our care, and this is our keeping.
We can lay down our weapons, and join our arms
In quantum peace
