No-Fathers Day


By: Thomas E. Brewton

A central tenet in liberal-progressive-socialism is re-directing allegiance from the family as the primary social unit and elevation of the political state as the sole source of individual well-being. Ultimately fathers’ role in this social paradigm is relegated to anonymously furnishing sperm to donor banks.

Many liberal-progressives will strongly object that they do not share this view. But they cannot deny the history of their secular religion and the teachings of those who animated it, as well as the actions of the New Left baby-boomer, student-anarchist generation, who now are in positions of authority, ranging from government and education to media.

An article in the Wall Street Journal (available only to subscribers, unfortunately) drives this point home.

Quote:

In “The Switch,” coming later this summer, Jennifer Aniston plays an attractive 40-year-old professional who has given up on finding Mr. Right for marriage and decides instead to move straight on to motherhood with a donor father. The movie offers a largely celebratory treatment of donor insemination, as do two other movies out this year, “The Back-up Plan” and next month’s “The Kids Are All Right.” Indeed, one of the bottom-line conclusions these movies are pushing is that the children turn out “all right” with donor dads.

Hollywood is not the only industry peddling the story line that flesh-and-blood fathers are an optional accessory in today’s families. Plenty of academics—from New York University sociologist Judith Stacey to Cornell psychologist Peggy Drexler—also have been arguing that mothers can do just as well raising children with donor fathers as they can with real ones.

In her book, “Raising Boys Without Men,” for instance, Ms. Drexler claims that “maverick moms,” including single women who rely on donor insemination, are just as successful raising boys as mothers who opt for the older model of marriage and motherhood. All that is needed for parental success, according to Ms. Drexler, is a “caring and supportive” model of mothering.

This view, of course, is a product of liberal-progressivism’s feminist Women’s Liberation Movement that surfaced in the 1960s.

Bill Ayers, a close friend, confidant, and political and philosophical advisor to President Obama (as well as the putative ghost-writer of Obama’s Dreams From My Father), was a principal officer in the radical wing of the 1960s Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and later a founder and officer of its even more radical offshoot, the Weather Underground. He has this to say regarding fathers and families:

A lot of the problems that people are going through now have to do with monogamy and its basis in male supremacy…That’s something that just has to be smashed…people have come to see the need to build collectives that can fight, the need to build collectives that are strong and tough, and in order to do that a lot of individualism has to be worked out of every one of us. Any notion that people can have a primary responsibility for one person, that they can have that “out” – we have to destroy that notion in order to build a collective, we have to destroy all “outs” to destroy the notion that people can lean on one person and not be responsible to the entire collective.

(From New Left Notes, 9/12/69, excerpted from Bill Ayers’s speech at the Midwest National Action conference held in Cleveland, August 29 – September 1, 1969)

For political purposes President Obama disavows the revolutionary bombings and murders of Bill Ayers’s Weatherman Underground, noting that he was himself a young child during the 1960s and 70s activism. It’s always somebody else’s fault, not his responsibility. But the fact remains that Obama, via support for abortion, actively encourages anti-family sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility of men who are biological fathers, but not real fathers within families.

Moreover, Obama’s appointees are tinged with the same anti-traditional ethos that permeated the 1789 French Revolution, the source of modern liberal-progressive-socialism. For example, Aaron Klein’s 10/23/09 article in WorldNetDaily reports:

The U.S. government should abolish its sanctioning of marriage, argued Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s regulatory czar.

Sunstein proposed that the concept of marriage should become privatized, with the state only granting civil union contracts to couples wishing to enter into an agreement.

Sunstein explained marriage licensing is unnecessary, pointing out people stay committed to organizations like country clubs and homeowner associations without any government interference.

Liberal-progressives’ infatuation with shedding all moral standards, expressed prominently in “hooking up” rather than marriage commitment, is a social steamroller obliterating traditional marriage. Liberal-progressive politicians do their part with the so-called marriage tax, making the tax burden higher for a married couple with two incomes than for two singles living together unmarried.

Why is it so important for liberal-progressives to reduce or eliminate loyalty to the family unit?

The answer is that the road to complete political dominance by liberal-progressive-socialism’s secular religion is blocked by Judeo-Christian religious morality. Triumph of liberal-progressive-socialism requires the destruction of spiritual religion. The family as a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God-given natural law. Hence the steady undermining of fathers and traditional families.

Emma Goldman, one of the best known orators for liberal-progressivism in the early decades of the 20th century, stated liberal-progressivism’s antipathy toward marriage and the traditional family quite bluntly in her 1913 essay entitled Victims of Morality.

It is the narrow puritanic spirit, as represented in the sterile minds of the Young-Men-and-Old-Maid’s Christian Union, Temperance Union, Sabbath Union, Purity League, etc. A spirit which is absolutely blind to the simplest manifestations of life; hence stands for stagnation and decay. ..it is safe to say that no other superstition is so detrimental to growth, so enervating and paralyzing to the minds and hearts of the people, as the superstition of Morality…It is Morality which condemns women to the position of a celibate, a prostitute, or a reckless, incessant breeder of hapless children.

Personal morality doesn’t come from the political state. It comes from the Holy Spirit infusing our individual souls, softening our individual hearts to do the right thing for the needy individuals in our local communities.

In contrast, liberal-progressive-socialism’s collectivist state fosters indifference to individuals around us. It promotes instead grasping greed for handouts under new welfare-state entitlements.

Yes, it’s true that liberal-progressive-socialists speak incessantly about the economic classes who supposedly are malevolently oppressed by “the rich.” But very high taxes and the blizzard of liberal-progressive government agencies and welfare-state programs lead people, especially of the generations since the 1960s New Left movement, to say, in effect, “I’ve already paid my taxes. Call the welfare office if you need help.”

The liberal-progressive political state thrives on the explosion of its beloved sexual promiscuity and resultant single-parent families. Single mothers struggling with the economic and social problems of raising children without fathers in the house are encouraged to turn to Big Brother for assistance.

Liberal-progressive-socialism requires ultimately destroying the historical traditions of Western civilization. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, but for Christianity, Western Europe would have disintegrated into chaotic anarchy, in which Thomas Hobbes said life would be nasty, brutish, and short. Christianity, based on Judeo-Christian morality, was the sole unifying element that kept Western Europe from falling into political chaos or under the dominance of Islamic aggression.

As fathers go, so go families. Without them and the Judeo-Christian morality they represent, the Declaration of Independence’s “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and the Bill of Rights become meaningless Rorschach ink-blots that politicians, educators, and judges can interpret to mean anything they wish.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

About The Author Thomas E. Brewton:
Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
Website:http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.