How to talk about so-called SSM to your children… and some other great links.


Something for the men, something for the women, and something for the children! Enjoy the following links!

The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood – a husbands prayer

Desiring God – We must learn to taste

Children Desiring God – How to talk about so-called SSM to your children

Geero.net – Possibly best Bible-based game ever made

Desiring Virtue – Never let her grieve or rejoice alone

4 thoughts on “How to talk about so-called SSM to your children… and some other great links.

  1. It was possible in May 2013, for a parent to find a social worker interfering with that parent’s Article 8 right to his private and family life, with the admitted agenda of ensuring that a child of that parent never saw that parent again, because that parent had lobbied against the SSM billl, before it was passed. I know this, because it happened to ME.

    Don’t believe it?

    See

    Why foster carers, but not natural parents?
    http://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/why-foster-carers/

    and

    Two year-old’s contact stopped with “homophobic” dad
    http://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/two-year-olds-contact-stopped-with-homophobic-dad/

    It is probably therefore unsafe for parents to talk honestly about SSM at all, to their children or to anybody else, unless they agree with SSM. This particular episode of “child safeguarding” social work intervention amounted (so-to-speak) to “preventative medicine”, since the child concerned was only two, and the possibility that his father might one day expose him to so-called homophobia was therefore still a remote and merely hypothetical risk.

    I haven’t see my little boy since before Christmas, under the supervision of a social worker. My son, who is now four, may never be allowed to see me again, in this life.

    I’ll be in Truro County Court at 12:15 on Wednesday 13th August 2014, challenging the legality of Cornwall Council’s child safeguarding social worker conducting the sort of inquisition into a natural parents “beliefs” that we know is already lawful, in the case of an applicant to work as a mere foster carer. This is a public hearing. There will be somebody there from my home church supporting me spiritually, somebody from the forty year-old Families Need Fathers charity, and possibly somebody from another issue group interested in the outcome. The press have been invited to the hearing. So are readers of this blog. If you do not believe my story, please come and see for yourselves that the two blog posts linked to are true, every word of them. If you cannot come to the court, at least pray for justice to be done.

    “Rejoice with those who do rejoice, and weep with those who weep.”

      1. This is nothing less than a legal challenge to the practise of interrogating natural parents about their beliefs, and making child safeguarding decisions to exclude completely from their children’s lives the Christian parents of illegitimate children (although I concede there ought not to be any Christian parents of illegitimate children – mea culpa). Decisions taken because of a perceived risk that the Christian parents might “indoctrinate” their own children, as we would all like to be free to continue to “indoctrinate” our own children, as we have done for centuries. Is that not a development that is alarming enough for E-N to want to report this court challenge of mine to the said practice, in print? Is there a good enough reason for E-N to be reluctant to shout this bad news from the rooftops?

    1. Update after the hearing:

      A big thank you to everybody who prayed. Here is a report of what happened in court yesterday.

      The final attendance was:
      * myself (obviously)
      * an old friend who arrived to visit the day before, because the Lord had sent him, he said, not knowing why
      * 4 colleagues from Families Need Fathers
      * a trainee minister from Truro, deputising for my own pastor in Launceston
      * a representative of Christian Voice
      * a newspaper reporter from a local paper, who took notes furiously, I am told.

      That makes nine people, or twelve including the clerk, the judge and the solicitor for Cornwall Council. The small court room was completely full.

      The council’s application to strike out my claim was not successful today, but the judge did ask me to amend my Particulars of Claim, to clarify certain points, within 28 days. That is not arduous. The council may then submit an amended Defence, and I may then submit an amended Reply To Defence.

      So, I have survived the first round, and live to fight another day, in a less precarious position. I feel almost bad saying “praise the Lord” as glibly as I have been, because I am challenged: Would I really still be praising Him even if I’d lost? I had promised I would be. I do thank him for not putting me to the test though.

      Really, today, I was ready for anything. Whatever had happened, I had worked out that it was something that would have glorified God in one way or another, eventually. But I was pleased, in the flesh, with the outcome. I was a little too pleased actually, when all the fellas from Families Need Fathers agreed unanimously when I arrived at the lunch venue, that I had been “brilliant” in court, to give God the glory immediately, there and then. I missed the window of opportunity to testify that God had helped me every step of the way. Truly, as we were reminded at my church only last Sunday, “Without Me you can do nothing.” [John 15]

      The next hearing will probably therefore not be for another three or four months, at which I hope to move forward, as opposed to merely holding my ground, as today.

      I am learning to trust God more through this. If I do right, and then things go wrong anyway, I don’t have to “fret when evil men succeed in their schemes” (Psalm 37). I am thankful to God that, today, things went almost the best that they could have gone. I’d rather be a winner than a martyr, though both are honourable.

      Maybe God is turning the tide. However, to change practices, so that parents whose beliefs are not politically correct are not at risk of havng their children removed for that reason alone, a change in the law is needed. If that is not accomplished by new statute, then it must be accomplished by new case law in a higher court than a county court. If God is to use my case to accomplish this, then either I shall have to lose eventually, on the exact point of law at stake – that having politically incorrect beliefs does not make one a bad parent, and then win an appeal on this very point of law in the High Court. Or the council will have to appeal when I win, on the same point of law, and lose their appeal. That precedent would bind every county court, an impinge upon even family law cases heard in the lower courts..

Comments are closed.