The state should force it way into the heart of the family - Tony Blair

by yawn Tue Sep 27, 2005 14:26

I have taken the trouble to read your thoughts and material, and must admit that I disagree with much of your general thrust, finding it reactionary and ill-equiped to the realities of modern Irish or European society. I also feel I must point out one line close to the beginning of your article which underscores the confused basis for many reactionary thinkers such as it seems your organisation attracts.

"For the past two thousand years and beyond that boundary between what is private and what is public has been delineated by the institution of
Marriage."

This is simply untrue Mr Eldridge. But the 2000 years suggests a certain ignorance of christian and social development. I want to remind you & all readers that citizenship and the rights of privacy have only been extended to the majority of the population as a result of the development of liberalism and the social belief patterns which followed the european enlightenment in the last 300 years.

I suggest (since it is clear you're a religious chap) you talk to your local minister of public worship about the historical development of slavery, chattledom, manumisson, serfdom, peasanthood, and then ask them to explain to you at length the theological debate on the commandment of Moses relating to parenthood and the history of Church support or opposition to the idea of "equality" which is rooted mr Eldridge in Liberalism.

by roger eldridge Wed Sep 28, 2005 00:15

dear yawn -( where do people on this site get their funny names from. whatever happened to people using their real names. we believe that if you are ashamed of what you have to say to the point where you feel you can't use your real name you shouldn't be saying it)

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments. My response is given between your own which are printed in capitals.

I HAVE TAKEN THE TROUBLE TO READ YOUR THOUGHTS AND MATERIAL, AND MUST ADMIT THAT I DISAGREE WITH MUCH OF YOUR GENERAL THRUST, FINDING IT REACTIONARY AND ILL-EQUIPED TO THE REALITIES OF MODERN IRISH OR EUROPEAN SOCIETY.

We make no concessions to political correctness. As is stated in our 'reactionary' report, "Parental Rights and Freedom"

"One of the very serious difficulties that has been experienced by commentators on these important matters has been the handicap of political correctness whereby a self-selected ‘consensus’ within the media, the State and academia has apparently created concepts, that we are forced to use, which give meanings to words that are in conflict with both their original dictionary definitions and with common sense.

By so doing the activist judicial and executive branches of the State have developed an air of legitimacy to their corruption of the status quo.
Nowhere is this seen more overt and virulent than in matters concerning personal relationships.

We are pleased to affirm that such political correctness is dead and readers of this analysis will note herein the return to the use of plain language. Moreover this report recognises the resurgence in the use of rationality in debating and analysing problems that confound the public in their concern for and striving for the common good.

This renaissance is to be welcomed by all family men and women of Ireland and everywhere within the global community where civilised society intends to flourish." (this report is available to download from our website www.family-men.com)

The men who comprise the National Mens Council of Ireland are middle-aged family men. I have no idea how old you are, perhaps you are too young to understand what that means. It means that we were brought up and educated in a society where the highest honour a man could achieve was to be considered a 'family-man' - a man who put his family, his wife and children before his own interests and needs, a man who was prepared to make the daily sacrifice of leaving the comfort of his own home and the companionship of his family to go off to work so that his family could have food to eat and a dry roof over their heads.

We also had the benefit of going to school and being educated so we know how to spell and how to add, subtract and multiply. Ie we see where we are being cheated and can send a letter of complaint that stands up to scrutiny without being ridiculed.

Under successively feminist governments children born after 1970 or thereabouts do have this ability and this is on purpose.

I ALSO FEEL I MUST POINT OUT ONE LINE CLOSE TO THE BEGINNING OF YOUR ARTICLE WHICH UNDERSCORES THE CONFUSED BASIS FOR MANY REACTIONARY THINKERS SUCH AS IT SEEMS YOUR ORGANISATION ATTRACTS.

"FOR THE PAST TWO THOUSAND YEARS AND BEYOND THAT BOUNDARY BETWEEN WHAT IS PRIVATE AND WHAT IS PUBLIC HAS BEEN DELINEATED BY THE INSTITUTION OF
MARRIAGE."

THIS IS SIMPLY UNTRUE MR ELDRIDGE. BUT THE 2000 YEARS SUGGESTS A CERTAIN IGNORANCE OF CHRISTIAN AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. I WANT TO REMIND YOU & ALL READERS THAT CITIZENSHIP AND THE RIGHTS OF PRIVACY HAVE ONLY BEEN EXTENDED TO THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION AS A RESULT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIBERALISM AND THE SOCIAL BELIEF PATTERNS WHICH FOLLOWED THE EUROPEAN ENLIGHTENMENT IN THE LAST 300 YEARS.

I am referring by the 2000 years to Paul's letter to the Ephesians, where he sets out how we should try to live our lives according to the path set for us by Jesus Christ.

Chapter 5, verses 21 to 31 specify very clearly out how the family should be constructed hierarchically for the benefit of its own members and to create a civilised society pleasant to live in. By the way we believe there should be an open debate to determine whether women would like to take over the responsibility that has been placed on men until now. It is feminists who refuse to allow that debate.

I have no problem with the enlightenment per se, only the corruption that flows from the state - big-government - realising that it could unite with big-business and usurp the power of the people by dividing them and ruling them by fomenting a phoney gender war that guaranteed the demise of the nuclear family, the dissolution of what John McGahern referred to when he said the Ireland of the sixties was an island of 100,000 little republics, ie where the parents had authority over their children in their own home and the state could not enter.

This is the basis of Article 41 and what De Valera explicitly referred to in the lead up to the vote on Article 41 of the Constitution, on 4 June 1937. Eamon de Valera is asked to clarify the meaning of “inalienable and imprescriptible rights” so that the legislators would understand clearly what they were voting for.
Professor O'Sullivan: That is all I want to know. The court will then be in the position of deciding what “inalienable and imprescriptible rights” are, …
President [Eamon de Valera]: …The inalienable and imprescriptible rights are the rights [of parents] to look after the maintenance and control of the children. …We want to stress the fact that these inalienable and imprescriptible rights cannot be invaded by the State.
Article 41 put and agreed to.

From the debates on the Constitution 2 June 1937
“Mr. McDermot: There is one question I would like to put to the President: what is the meaning of sub-section 2º of Section 1: “The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority...” What does “authority” mean? Does it mean the authority of the head of the Family over the Family? If it does not mean that, what alternative meaning is there?
The President de Valera: The President: It is the authority of the heads of the Family over their children, their right to look after their education and not to be interfered with by another authority in the State except for reasons that would be mentioned; that is to say where there was failure or neglect on their part to provide for the children, or, from the social point of view, failure to see that the children received a proper education. The Family have rights antecedent to and superior to all positive law, and any interference with the authority of the head of the Family will have to be justified on certain grounds. That is the authority that is referred to there.”
3. The only grounds on which the State can interfere with the Authority of the Family are stated in and controlled by Article 42.5.
42.5 In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

I SUGGEST (SINCE IT IS CLEAR YOU'RE A RELIGIOUS CHAP) YOU TALK TO YOUR LOCAL MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORSHIP ABOUT THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SLAVERY, CHATTLEDOM, MANUMISSON, SERFDOM, PEASANTHOOD, AND THEN ASK THEM TO EXPLAIN TO YOU AT LENGTH THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE ON THE COMMANDMENT OF MOSES RELATING TO PARENTHOOD AND THE HISTORY OF CHURCH SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO THE IDEA OF "EQUALITY" WHICH IS ROOTED MR ELDRIDGE IN LIBERALISM.

There is no such thing as 'equality' in the way that it is used to exploit the people by the state. Men and women in the family, ie in the way in which they function as adults exercising their sovereign power, they are husband and wife.

The Supreme Court has on many occasions recognised Article 40 to allow for the fact that men and women have equality insofar as it does not interfere with their social functions. Ie once they are married their is no equality only insofar as they both work together in a complementary fashion with both being equally as important as the other.

The socialist version of 'equality' is merely a ruse to bring everyone within the jurisdiction of the state as when two people possess a truly equal right to something then they require by definition a third party in constant attendance to arbitrate between them over any decision that must be taken. That is the state through its courts.

This is utter nonsense as the family is a unit and like all units that have to function well and safely it can only do this if it is run in a hierarchical fashion, like on board a ship or in a company or a government.

There can only be one captain, one prime minister or one CEO. Not so that, as puerile feminist ideology puts it, they can power over everyone but SO THAT THEY ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERYTHING.

Please read the reports we post at our website www.family-men.com for a better understanding of the corruption that is going on and then please do us the favour of showing us where the rationale we use is incorrect so we can amend it and produce a more accurate analysis.

God bless you for your interest.

Roger Eldridge,
Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland,
Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
Www.family-men.com
Tel: 00 353 (0) 71-9667138
Email: familymen@eircom.net

by yawning gap Wed Sep 28, 2005 01:38

Yes, he was the chap who had the right to a trial wasn't he?
I seem to remember Mr Eldridge that he travelled to Rome in a slave driven boat by the name of Castor and Pollux. I remember that because I'm a classicist and know all about manumission and the conditions placed on family life during, before & after the time of the Christ.

Now which verse were you referring to exactly?

by Roger Eldridge Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:31

You correctly point out that customs change over a period of time.

My point is that we as citizens should have the right to determine how they change and not be manoeuvred into accepting what the state imposes on us without the people understanding they are being enslaved.

Perhaps if you could explain to the rest of us, who you believe are more ignorant than you over these matters, what your position is rather than just attacking the position of family-men we might all be the wiser.

It would appear you are obfuscating the main point and acting as an apologist for Blair.

What the people need to know is where do socialist apologists like you possibly, certainly like self-confessed socialsit Taoiseach Ahern, stand on the issue of the married family.

This is a simple question for you

Do you support a view of government for this country that "guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State." or not?

A lot rests on your answer.

by M Cotton Wed Sep 28, 2005 17:25

It is the family, rather, that should be forcing its way into the heart of the sate, not the other way around. The state aparatus is there to serve us, not the other way around. Mr Blair needs to be very careful when he starts talking about accountability for families and parents because there are some glaring failures of accountability in his own record and that of his party and their government.

by kintama Wed Sep 28, 2005 21:03

Well put M Cotton but not likely to happen .
The state have certainly got into the heart of the de Menezes family from Brazil but a states gotta do what a states gotta do.
You have to hope there no families at the British 'Labour' Party Conference with heckling on their minds as Tonys goons don't seem to do the 'hearts and minds' bit.

by yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn - (oh are you still there?) Thu Sep 29, 2005 13:23

the point of my previous comments was to bring readers' attention to the nonsensical and ahistorical allusions which pepper your organisation's statements on important aspects of social policy and the protection afforded by the UK state to its citizens.

The thrust of your article is that Blair is bad for the family, yet the minister for education Ruth Kelly in the british government is a member of Opus Dei.
She arguably is one of the cabinet members with most influence over state decisions which effect children and family members.

She is the only self-admitted, self-declared member of the organisation at government minister level in the EU. Though indeed we do believe there are more of them about the place. They seem to be getting everywhere these days. I think it odd that the critics of government policy to which she contributes would dare to quote "ephesians" as if it justified their reactionary attitudes, and ought form the bedrock of family organisation.

Mr Eldridge, put it this way, I can read ephesians in the original. I can go to my bookshelf now and compare the concordances, and line by line what I see is an important early christian text and a very interesting document of historical value as was the whole life of Paul. You, I, we all may learn a lot about social divisions and inequalities and slavery by pondering his conversion, early prelature, route to Rome aboard the castor and pollux and trial.

Amongst certain catholic circles, it is now carte blanche to see in Paul, the answers to all questions. To see him as being of primary importance. Yet not once did he write on the life of the Christ and His presentation, or the obvious tale of "the messiah's disobedience".

I think mr Eldridge you ought leave your religious beliefs, poorly educated as they seem in the privacy of your home or prayer group, and though developing your political agenda on the ethical and moral conclusions those beliefs have brought you, be wary of writing such flimsy condemnations of very complex government policy for a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society such as the UK and by implication the republic of Ireland.

by roger eldridge - National Mens Council of Ireland Sat Oct 01, 2005 02:08 familymen at eircom dot net

I am sorry that i have to repeat myself but perhaps if you could explain to the rest of us, who you believe are more ignorant than you over these matters, what your position is rather than just attacking the position of family-men we might all be the wiser.

The letter to the Ephesians represents the basis for how one should conduct oneself as a Christian. If you are not a Christian presumably you adhere to another set of rules that work for the Common Good and at some point you might enlighten us what that is.

However that point is not central to the thrust of this dicussion.

It would appear you are performing the classical act of someone who is caught out and is desperately trying to avoid having to reveal their true position. This is the typical feminist response because at the heart of their ideology it is bankrupt and devoid of rationale. I say feminist meaning what it is today, ie state funded, state driven socialism.

What the people need to know and are still waiting to hear from you Mr Yawn, is where do socialist apologists like you and self-confessed socialists like Taoiseach Ahern, stand on the issue of the married family.

This is a simple question for you

Do you support a view of government for this country that "guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State." or not?

A lot rests on your answer and the clock is ticking.

by yawn yawn yawn - elijah & jeezabels & the poor poor kids Sat Oct 08, 2005 17:26

& I wondered at your description of me as a "socialist apologist". & each night I slept without malice to you. I pondered this text "ephesians" which you say is the core document for christian life. & your inability to recognise slavery or define the words in the 6th chapter 5th verse "douloi" and "kuriois" ("bondsmen" and "master").

I wondered about the previous chapter which perhaps ought be quoted for the readers of this site as I doubt they know it off by heart and it is so central to your agenda.
5th chapter
verse": 22 : wives, submit yoursleves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord. :23: for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the saviour of the body. :24: therefore, as the church is subject unto christ, so {let} the wives {be} to their own husbands in every thing."

jolly interesting 1st century common era stuff, Mr Eldridge, just one thing I want to know, before i answer your questions in the last comment-

How many wives did each Ephesian husband have?

the clock is ticking.

by Barry Sat Oct 08, 2005 17:37

as it appears one of mr blairs cabinet colleagues is a member of this cult , dont be surprised if the mens council dont do a u turn if opus dei start interfering in family life .

by yawn Sat Oct 08, 2005 18:44

Paul's letter to the Ephesians tells us and Mr Eldrige many things, to some of us they may be of historical interest, for Mr Eldridge they are the rules for christian life.

Mr Eldridge is told he is master of his own home and wife (&/or wives) and in the next chapter he is told his children must obey him as he did his own parents. He is then told that bondsmen must obey their masters.

Mr Eldridge represents a micro-group who are engaged in vocalising concerns that many men might have, on their families, on the legal and economic help and assistance afforded them and issues of great importance to our society.

Mr Eldridge (I presume) does not address the question of slavery or circumcision in Paul's letter t the Ephesians or observe special dietary practise because he feels "time" and "history" of things like bigamy laws and emancipation make them irrelevant. But "feminism" is not be accepted.

Paul's letter to the Ephesians in the verses referred to above states quite clearly that bondsmen are obliged to obey their masters.

For Mr Eldridge's peers in the UK, their master is the UK elected government of mr Blair and his Opus Dei minister for education Ruth Kelly. If that state says there is a need for society to be involved in the care of some children, where is Mr Eldridge's ephesians?

Or is Mr Eldridge not a bondsman and rather then a master? How in the name of Saul did such a thing occur?

_______________________________________
Lets give him a while to think it over.

at manumission the slave was allowed take off their collar.