October 8, 2008

WHAT does it take to be considered a "good parent"? According to the Oxford dictionary, "good" means 'having the right or desirable qualities; satisfactory, proper, expedient, morally correct, kindly, well-behaved, enjoyable, beneficial, efficient, thorough' etc. etc.

On the other hand, "parent" means "father or mother; source from which other things are derived". So, to all the parents out there ¿ are you a good parent?

Certain circumstances may sometimes be beyond a good parent's control and, therefore, they should not be held responsible for the disobedient child, especially if the child is over the age of 16. After all, 'you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink; you can give a man your heart and soul but you cannot make him think'.

Once children become 16, from a legal perspective, they can have consensual sex. This gives them the feeling that they have become men and women even though they are still dependent upon their parents. Respect goes out the window, together with some of the rebellious teens who would rather disrespect anyone's rules.

So where does that leave us? The parents who think they are being good parents are unaware of what their children are doing. The teens must also remember that "what's done can't be undone".

It's important for parents to set a proper example for their children to follow and I mean from birth. Children should not be exposed to drugs, alcohol, violence, extramarital affairs etc. and they should not be encouraged to lie to protect a parent. These negative elements are learned behaviours, and could very easily be observed by the children who repeat the same behaviour later on in life, thus creating a cycle. Some parents are too busy taking care of their own desires and will often choose a night of sex or drinking at a bar over staying home to care for their children.

You may have one parent acting responsibly while the other parent couldn't care less, so where does that leave the child? A divorced mother or father who ends up with sole custody of a child because the other parent is irresponsible has to play the role of mother and father, which is no easy task. With all contact being lost between the parents, as a result, the child suffers.

Once the child becomes an adolescent and resumes contact with the non-custodial parent, a lot of animosity surfaces and often it's the custodial parent who feels the wrath. It's easier for the non-custodial parent to be critical and blame the custodial parent rather than admit that he/she has been the not so good parent.

When the custodial parent notices that the adolescent is now mimicking the negative behaviour he/she learned as a child from the non-custodial parent, and attempts to discipline the child, the custodial parent is met with rebellion. The adolescent then makes a report to the non-custodial parent and chooses to gravitate towards them to escape discipline. Children will seek out the weakest link as they are great manipulators. Regardless of the bad behaviour, he/she is welcomed into the home of the non-custodial parent.

As far as the Parental Responsibility Act is concerned, if a parent is legally responsible for a child and that child, once he becomes 16 years of age, chooses to leave the residence of the custodial parent to go and live with the non-custodial parent, how can the custodial parent be held responsible for the actions of the child?

For the sake of the child, the custodial parent may agree to relinquish maintenance fees, however, that doesn't mean that they are relieving themselves of the responsibility of caring for that child. They can still communicate either directly with the child, with the non-custodial parent (if possible) or through the school. Good parenting does not just mean providing for a child financially. Each case must be considered according to the circumstances.

As long as adolescents are considered dependants, they should honour the tree that gives them shelter.

A GOOD PARENT

Devonshire

Thoughts about religion

October 8, 2008

I attended Anglican schools and universities and in my early life regularly attended chapel and church services. I was told Christianity had never been found wanting ¿ only difficult and abandoned. I read the Bible and Book of Common Prayer and have been influenced by writers such as Richard Hooker, John Bunyan, Henry Drummond, Henry Newman, C.S. Lewis and others, I have been impressed by the Roman Church but am put off by its doctrines concerning contraception and infallibility and the role of women.

Religion has been a powerful force in all societies since the evolution of homo sapiens over ten thousand years ago and I have looked into the history and teachings and some of the sacred writings of other world religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Mohommedanism. In none of them did I find a concept of God which appealed to me as much as the one I learned in the Anglican Church.

The highest concepts in human experience are expressed in the words truth and goodness and beauty. I was taught to associate these with the persons of the Christian concept of God being a Trinity ¿ truth being the omniscience of God the Father ¿ goodness being the compassion of God the Son ¿ beauty being the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit. Pursuing God is a matter of seeking truth ¿ and doing well towards one's fellow beings ¿ and preferring beauty to ugliness. Doing these things has been meaningful in conducting my life.

It is only in the Western World in the last 500 years ¿ a tiny part of the world's population and a tiny part of man's history ¿ that the search for truth has freed man's reasoning powers to achieve levels of civilisation and happiness for mankind not hitherto dreamed of. The main obstacle opposing this progress has always been religion and this fact has caused me to enquire into the nature of the God on which religion is based.

The first thing I was taught about God was that he created the universe in which we live. This means that the natural world is the creation of a supernatural being. But does this take us any further? Surely this is to solve one mystery by substituting another mystery.

Who created the creator? The natural world could well have come into existence on its own without supernatural assistance. When the late Charles Darwin was giving a lecture on the origin of the species he was asked where God fitted in and he said: "I have no need for that hypothesis."

All religions teach that God has an interest in each human being and knows and cares how each individual thinks and behaves. God is either pleased or displeased by the way each individual behaves and will reward or punish accordingly.

There is no evidence to support the existence of such a supernatural being and it is unreasonable to hold such a belief. Most religions also teach that there is a life after death partly playing on the universal fear of death and also giving hope that the injustices of this life will be put right in the hereinafter. This belief is also unreasonable.

Another unreasonable belief is that religious people are more moral and behave better than atheists. Honesty and kindness are universally revered as virtues in every society just as theft and murder are condemned as vices. These values are observed even in the animal world and will continue to prevail regardless of religion.

When individuals or governments defy these basic values by indulging in theft and murder they are usually motivated by religious fanatics who believe that they are justified in so doing because they are carrying out God's will. There is a compelling case that any benefits to humanity brought about by religion are outweighed by the evil and misery it has caused in human affairs.

Nothing exists other than the natural world which we perceive with our senses and investigate with our minds. So far from man being created in the image of God man has created an image of God which is nothing more than an imagined extension of the aspirations he has for himself ¿ attributing to it omnipotence and omniscience and eternal life. In short man has deluded himself into believing in the reality of the existence of a being which is nothing more than something which he would like to be.

Does the rejection of many of the traditional beliefs concerning the nature of God necessarily result in one being an atheist? Perhaps not. I believe man's mind is not capable of understanding or controlling the natural world. I also believe and try to follow the values I learned as a member of the Anglican Communion. In so far as a belief in God helps solve the problem of how best to live ones life I believe in a concept of a God which does not either invoke the supernatural or conflict with reason.

WILLIAM M. COX

Devonshire

Say no to the dumpsters

October 8, 2008

IS Government in bed with big business? What would Dame Lois (pictured) think? Just say NO to dumpsters!

TRUCKED OFF

Support small businessman

October 6, 2008

I READ the recent Letter to the Editor from "Livelihood At Risk" and I went to speak with my neighbour who owns a truck. He is a friend of mine and I did not realise how difficult it has become for him to make a decent living. He told me that in the many years that he had been driving trucks, the last six months or more have been particularly difficult.

A lot of the previous work that he had, and that he could rely upon for steady income, has now been taken over by the tractor trailer haulers.

I would like to inform the public on what my friend the small independent trucker represents. He is one person in a group of working-class people who all strive to support their family through hard, honest labour. Many of them have sacrificed to scrimp and save enough funds to purchase their permits.

My friend started off by driving a dump truck for someone else and drove water trucks on the weekends. He is the major "bread winner" in his family and it is getting more difficult to earn a living in an ever increasing challenging economy. He is not looking for a handout but wants the "playing field" levelled.

Currently, he like many of the truckers supports the Government, but increasingly I am hearing of their disillusionment. May I remind my elected officials that they were born out of the struggle, trade unionism and the civil rights movement. The late champions of these causes surely would side with the working class independent truckers over large business interests.

I find it ironic that my Government is doing a fine job in the revitalidation of North East Hamilton. The plight of the small independent trucker is in stark contrast.

Please, for the future well-being of these truckers and their families, can Government reconsider their position on this dire issue and show support for the common small businessman.

I, like my neighbour friend, support this Government but I am concerned that the leadership may be losing sight of the everyday people that they were elected to represent.

CONCERNED PLP SUPPORTER

Now here's my hero . . .

October 7, 2008

NATIONAL Heroes' Day is just around the corner. I'm excited! How about you? Sounds like one of those holidays that is handed out by totalitarian states. I have a "hero" in mind who I certainly think is worth a few moments of reflection and he isn't a politician ¿ in my book they don't qualify.

It was back in 1948 and the island (Bermuda wasn't a nation then) was struggling with the immediate post-war years and starting to build its fledgling tourist industry but not much was happening, progress was very slow.

A spirited young man asked for a meeting with the City fathers and was begrudgingly given one . . . a formidable lot to appear before as one could imagine. He told them that the problem with the slow progress was that the workmen were unhappy.

"Unhappy!" growled a voice from the back of the room, "What do you mean by 'unhappy', young man?"

Gathering up all his courage, the young man said: "You're making them work too long hours for too little money. You haven't changed their wages since 1936."

The silence in the room was deafening as one could imagine. But as fearsome a lot as they were, these colonial diehards were not stupid men.

"What do you suggest to remedy the problem?" growled the same voice.

"Reduce their work hour week from 60 hours to 48 hours but pay them for 60 hours," said our spirited young man.

And that, Mr. Editor is indeed what happened. There was a surge in productivity because the workers were now happy.

Who was this young man? I'll tell you this much: He saw an injustice and tried to put it right.

Oh, and by the way, he was a white Englishman who had just arrived upon our fair shores two years before. I understand he's still around.

You know, on second thought, there is a politician I would think about on Heroes' Day: Thank you Ann Cartwright for giving us back our fish.

WONDERING AND WANDERING IN SOUTHAMPTON