If a house is burned to the ground, you can cry about the firefighters not saving the house or criticize the building material for not being fire retardant – but mostly you blame the person who started the fire. Last week, a government worker named Shirley Sherrod was fired after a heavily edited video clip of her NAACP speech was used to paint her as a racist. In one nanosecond, her reputation was burned down to the ground, causing her to lose her job almost instantly.
Later, when the whole speech was revealed, it proved the clip making the rounds on the various ‘news’ channels was way out of context. Once the truth was learned, the media booed her bosses for firing her, blasted the NAACP for calling her a racist; and even the president was chided for not checking into the story before acting (although the media is just as guilty of the same). But what about the guy who started the fire? As of today, he is still getting away with it. Andrew Breitbart is the far-right wingnut blogger who posted an extremely edited video of Sherrod. He put it on one of his five Web sites. Breitbart, a former Matt Drudge trainee, onetime E Entertainment employee, and the guy who called Senator Edward Kennedy "a special pile of human excrement" just hours after Kennedy’s death, published the edited clip of Shirley Sherrod as ‘evidence’ of reverse racism by the NAACP. He claimed the audience applauded her so-called reverse racism.
The complete, unedited video shows no such thing.
Breitbart lit that fire on purpose – to try to paint the NAACP as a racist organization. He probably knew that what he was doing could ruin Sherrod’s career and her personal life. As Sherrod would later tell CNN, "He knew exactly what would happen." The story began with Breitbart. He is where the blame lies and where the punishment should be doled out. But how do you punish a lying blogger like Breitbart who can easily slither back into his dark hole of pseudo journalism. He answers to no one except his far-right wingnut readers who lap up everything he, and others like him, posts.
Breitbart boasted about his ‘journalistic’ skills to the media last week, "I am public enemy No. 1 or 2 to the Democratic Party ... based upon the successes my ‘journalism’ has had."
What journalism? It's not journalism if you use edited, spliced material to paint a picture of an incident that is totally incorrect. It is not journalism if you use any means, including lying and manipulating the evidence, to obtain your desired end.
Some people have called this incident a referendum on racism. But it was also a referendum on editing, a referendum on Internet blogging, a referendum on our insatiable desire for explosive news, and our refusal to see the full picture. Anyone who watches the whole tape of Sherrod's speech sees an honest woman who tells of helping a nearly bankrupt white farmer 24 years ago that made her question her own prejudices. In the video, she goes on to say such things as: "Working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't have ... and they could be black; they could be white; they could be Hispanic…. God helped me see that it's not just about black people…. I've come to realize that we have to work together…. We have to overcome the divisions that we have."
Yet, Breitbart's web site contains pieces like "If Anyone Needs to Apologize, It's Shirley Sherrod." Breitbart actually said the following of Sherrod: "This person has not gotten past black versus white." Wrong. It is Breitbart that cannot get past black versus white – and past his hate for any group in this country who does not think like he does. Hate like Breitbart’s makes the political world spin, especially the blogosphere.
Some right wingers actually claimed Breitbart was a "victim" of whomever gave him this video. But you cannot blame others if what you write or put on your blog turns up to be bogus. Instead of taking responsibility for what he put out into the blogosphere, he blames everyone else – the liberals, President Barack Obama, the NAACP, even Sherrod herself, a woman who was nothing more than his pawn.
"I believe that I am held to a higher standard," Breitbart told Politico. "If this video showed a picture of a Caucasian talking in the exact same way but talking about a black person with an audience affirming and clapping that behavior, the reporter would be getting a Pulitzer Prize right now."
Uh… No, he wouldn't. Showing a heavily edited video is not "reporting." Breitbart, and those far-right wingers like him (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Fox ‘News’ come to mind) are not held to any standard by anyone.
That, my dear readers, is what is wrong with this whole situation. Breitbart lied, and then called it journalism.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
It is high time
Glenn Beck started an anti-faith campaign in March, when he linked social justice (helping the ‘least of these’) to communism and Nazism and urged his audience to abandon churches that preach social justice, saying:
"I beg you; look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes."
On May 28, on his nationally syndicated radio show, Beck read an excerpt from a Washington Post ad by Simon Greer, President of Jewish Funds for Justice. In it, Simon argued that we are at our best as a society when we put humankind and the common good first. Beck responded that "This leads to death camps. A Jew, of all people, should know that. This is exactly the kind of talk that led to the death camps in Germany."
At last, Americans of faith are telling Glenn Beck that enough is enough. This summer as Beck does a speaking tour of the United States, Faithful America – a multi-faith organization – has rallied its members to push back against Beck's false-Christian-social-justice message. When Beck makes stops in South Carolina, New York, New Jersey, and Washington D.C., the group's new radio ad will follow his trail and challenge his words as false gospel on local Christian radio stations.
The ad not only points a finger at Beck; it also challenges Christians to pay closer attention to their own Scriptures instead of blindly following Beck's version of Christianity. “Would you support a leader who said Jesus' teachings can lead to Nazism or who attacks Christian pastors for preaching the full gospel? Then why do so many Christians tune in to Glenn Beck?” the ad asks. This ad kicks off Faithful America's “Driven by Faith, Not by Fear” campaign to counter the extreme statements of pundits and Tea Partiers.
Beth Dahlman, online organizer for Faithful America, said in an interview, “He [Beck] has gone after what is at the heart of what our faith tradition says. For people in our community, there is just no way to read scripture and not think about social justice. It is our obligation as people of faith to take that seriously and to do all we can to make that good news a reality… Christians are cautioned not to praise God in one breath, while cursing those made in God's likeness in the next.” With membership already surpassing one hundred thousand, Faithful America, founded in 2004, works with America's diverse religious communities to act for justice on pressing moral issues.
In the wake of his attack on Judeo-Christian values, people of faith continue to speak out against Beck’s kind of demagoguery and advocate for real solutions to the pressing challenges facing millions of Americans. Leaders of the faith community are also standing up to Beck with an ad in Forward. The ad in Forward is sponsored by Jewish Funds for Justice which was the subject of one of Beck's most truly hateful tirades; but it is signed by more than 250 supporters of the group's work for social justice, including Christian clergy and Jewish rabbis.
“We have no illusions that our ad is going to change Glenn Beck's mind all of the sudden,” Beth Dahlman said. Faithful America's goal is to counter Beck's false messages of faith and speak the truth about what Jesus taught about caring for the vulnerable. If more Americans heed the challenge given by many leaders of Christian and Jewish faiths, Beck's ratings could continue its downward trend.
As Beck's attacks on the tenets of Christianity grow ever more vicious, these efforts are more important than ever. It is high time Christians took on false prophets like Glenn Beck.
"I beg you; look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes."
On May 28, on his nationally syndicated radio show, Beck read an excerpt from a Washington Post ad by Simon Greer, President of Jewish Funds for Justice. In it, Simon argued that we are at our best as a society when we put humankind and the common good first. Beck responded that "This leads to death camps. A Jew, of all people, should know that. This is exactly the kind of talk that led to the death camps in Germany."
At last, Americans of faith are telling Glenn Beck that enough is enough. This summer as Beck does a speaking tour of the United States, Faithful America – a multi-faith organization – has rallied its members to push back against Beck's false-Christian-social-justice message. When Beck makes stops in South Carolina, New York, New Jersey, and Washington D.C., the group's new radio ad will follow his trail and challenge his words as false gospel on local Christian radio stations.
The ad not only points a finger at Beck; it also challenges Christians to pay closer attention to their own Scriptures instead of blindly following Beck's version of Christianity. “Would you support a leader who said Jesus' teachings can lead to Nazism or who attacks Christian pastors for preaching the full gospel? Then why do so many Christians tune in to Glenn Beck?” the ad asks. This ad kicks off Faithful America's “Driven by Faith, Not by Fear” campaign to counter the extreme statements of pundits and Tea Partiers.
Beth Dahlman, online organizer for Faithful America, said in an interview, “He [Beck] has gone after what is at the heart of what our faith tradition says. For people in our community, there is just no way to read scripture and not think about social justice. It is our obligation as people of faith to take that seriously and to do all we can to make that good news a reality… Christians are cautioned not to praise God in one breath, while cursing those made in God's likeness in the next.” With membership already surpassing one hundred thousand, Faithful America, founded in 2004, works with America's diverse religious communities to act for justice on pressing moral issues.
In the wake of his attack on Judeo-Christian values, people of faith continue to speak out against Beck’s kind of demagoguery and advocate for real solutions to the pressing challenges facing millions of Americans. Leaders of the faith community are also standing up to Beck with an ad in Forward. The ad in Forward is sponsored by Jewish Funds for Justice which was the subject of one of Beck's most truly hateful tirades; but it is signed by more than 250 supporters of the group's work for social justice, including Christian clergy and Jewish rabbis.
“We have no illusions that our ad is going to change Glenn Beck's mind all of the sudden,” Beth Dahlman said. Faithful America's goal is to counter Beck's false messages of faith and speak the truth about what Jesus taught about caring for the vulnerable. If more Americans heed the challenge given by many leaders of Christian and Jewish faiths, Beck's ratings could continue its downward trend.
As Beck's attacks on the tenets of Christianity grow ever more vicious, these efforts are more important than ever. It is high time Christians took on false prophets like Glenn Beck.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
No one hears God with their ears
Many Christians are secretly distressed because they feel like their relationship with Christ is not as intense or constant as it is supposed to be.
When speaking about Christ, we Christians naturally use the only language available. But using language to capture the Reality of God is like trying to use children’s numbered blocks to teach quantum physics. It is simply insufficient for the challenge. The language we employ to describe our relationship with God/Christ is precisely the same language we employ to talk about our actual, human relationships. We say that we “walk” with Jesus; we “talk” with Jesus; we “spend time” with Jesus; Jesus is “beside” us; Jesus “hears” our prayers, Jesus “holds our hand,” and so on. But when it comes to Jesus, those words are not true at all in the same way they are when we are speaking of regular people.
And that difference can create some stress in the lives of believers.
The reason any given Christian is so prone to feeling like his relationship with Jesus is less than it should be is because the Christians around him are forever describing their relationship with Jesus in human terms. Then when he does not experience Jesus with anything like what many describe, when he cannot hear Jesus talking to him, he feels inferior or ashamed. He cannot help but think that the relationship others seem to have with Christ is better or richer – more real – than what he has experienced.
Do not worry that you do not really see, speak, talk, or walk with Jesus. No one else does either. People think they have to act like the relationship they have with Jesus is just like the relationship they have with humans, but that is just a conceptual misunderstanding. Jesus is spirit.
No one ever gets human-like feedback from Christ that is any more real, specific, or pointed than you do. Nobody on earth is holding hands with Christ. Nobody sane is having a conversation with Christ or God where they hear answers coming back at them. Those TV preachers who say that they have heard God’s or Jesus’ voice telling them to build this building or do that mission are lying through their teeth just to get you to send money.
You “hear” God within your heart; many call this the Holy Spirit. Jesus does not communicate with you so that your ears can hear what he says. God/Jesus communicates to you within your mind and heart in a language that you, and only you, can understand.
That is the reality of anyone’s relationship with Christ.
When speaking about Christ, we Christians naturally use the only language available. But using language to capture the Reality of God is like trying to use children’s numbered blocks to teach quantum physics. It is simply insufficient for the challenge. The language we employ to describe our relationship with God/Christ is precisely the same language we employ to talk about our actual, human relationships. We say that we “walk” with Jesus; we “talk” with Jesus; we “spend time” with Jesus; Jesus is “beside” us; Jesus “hears” our prayers, Jesus “holds our hand,” and so on. But when it comes to Jesus, those words are not true at all in the same way they are when we are speaking of regular people.
And that difference can create some stress in the lives of believers.
The reason any given Christian is so prone to feeling like his relationship with Jesus is less than it should be is because the Christians around him are forever describing their relationship with Jesus in human terms. Then when he does not experience Jesus with anything like what many describe, when he cannot hear Jesus talking to him, he feels inferior or ashamed. He cannot help but think that the relationship others seem to have with Christ is better or richer – more real – than what he has experienced.
Do not worry that you do not really see, speak, talk, or walk with Jesus. No one else does either. People think they have to act like the relationship they have with Jesus is just like the relationship they have with humans, but that is just a conceptual misunderstanding. Jesus is spirit.
No one ever gets human-like feedback from Christ that is any more real, specific, or pointed than you do. Nobody on earth is holding hands with Christ. Nobody sane is having a conversation with Christ or God where they hear answers coming back at them. Those TV preachers who say that they have heard God’s or Jesus’ voice telling them to build this building or do that mission are lying through their teeth just to get you to send money.
You “hear” God within your heart; many call this the Holy Spirit. Jesus does not communicate with you so that your ears can hear what he says. God/Jesus communicates to you within your mind and heart in a language that you, and only you, can understand.
That is the reality of anyone’s relationship with Christ.
The necessary kind of love
A few weeks ago, I posted an article called “A hole in my heart” where I stated that the assumption that all parents are programmed to love their children unconditionally and protect them from harm is not universally true. I can attest to this personally.
Let me expound upon that theme.
Emotional cruelty is a hidden cruelty and often very damaging to a family for multiple generations. A parent’s cruel, conditional love is most often repeated by the grown children toward their children – hence, the Bible verse about the sins of the father: “He committed all the sins his father had done before him.…” (1 Kings 15:3)
In the book Unconditional Parenting, Alfie Kohn looks at the difference between loving your children for what they do and loving them for who they are. The first sort of love is conditional, which means children must earn it by acting in ways their parents deem appropriate or by performing up to their parents’ expectations. The second sort of love is unconditional: It does not depend on how children behave or whether they are successful at what they do.
Parents all too often place conditions on their love in order to control their children. In fact, although this type of parent will believe they are being controlling out of love, it is really all about power and control. They view the child as a piece of clay to be shape in whatever form they want their child to be. They see the child's brain as an empty vessel to be filled with their own beliefs, personalities, etc – a 'mini me' per se. They are led to do so not only by what they were raised to believe, but also by how they were raised – conditioned to be conditional in giving love – causing the cycle (sins of the father) to continue. The child has to have a very strong personality to break the accepted behavior pattern after generations of “sin”.
The root of this type of thinking has crept deep into American consciousness. In fact, unconditional acceptance seems to be only an ideal: An Internet search for variants of the word ‘unconditional’ mostly turns up discussions about God or pets. Apparently, it is hard for many people to imagine love among humans without strings attached. For a child, some of those strings have to do with good behavior and some have to do with achievement.
Conditional love relies on discipline techniques whose only purpose is to make kids act – or stop acting – in a particular way. It is manipulative and controlling. It is like making a child say, “I’m sorry.” Apparently the parent hopes that making the child say it will make it true. There are no explanations. The child is not really taught anything except that when one is caught being bad, saying “sorry” will possibly deflect punishment. Nothing matters except the stuff on the surface. There are no questions about who kids are, what they think or feel or need, or why they behaved badly. There is no thought of motives and values: The idea is just to change the behavior.
This belief in harsh punishment, in breaking a child’s spirit, not only reflects an assumption about what kids learn in a given situation or how they learn, it also reflects a jaundiced view of children – and, by extension, of human nature. It assumes that, given half a chance, kids will take advantage of anyone or any situation as in the old saying, “Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.” According to this belief, acceptance without strings attached will be interpreted by the child as permission to act selfish, demanding, greedy, or inconsiderate. In other words, the belief in conditional parenting is based on the deeply cynical view that accepting kids for who they are allows them to be bad because that is who they are. It is true that those consequences are possible if one does not properly use teaching moments.
Children act out for many different reasons, some of which may be hard to discern. Parents, in their attempt to discipline, should not ignore the reasons behind the behavior and only respond to the behavior. For example, a 4-year-old may be defiant because she's worried about the implications of the new baby getting so much attention. She is worried that she is no longer loved and is expressing her fear the only way a 4-year-old can. The parents should deal with the 4-year-old’s feelings, not merely try to stomp out the way she's expressing her fear. Unconditional parenting assumes that behaviors are the outward expression of feelings and thoughts, needs and intentions. In this case, punishment is not necessary and would actually be the wrong thing to do. There is one overriding imperative: she needs to feel loved. Unconditional love means to nurture – not control. It's the child that matters, not just the behavior by itself.
Unconditional parenting is not a fancy term for letting kids do whatever they want. It does not throw out consequences or punishment altogether. Punishment is allowed – but it cannot be unreasonable or harsh. And it should not be physical – as in beatings with a belt or other instrument of torture. It is very important (once a child’s bad behavior has passed and penance served) to teach, to reflect together – then reinforce the love. Whatever lesson a parent hopes to impart is far more likely to be learned if the child knows that their parent’s love was not diminished by how she acted.
The unconditional approach to parenting begins with the reminder that the child is not trying to make the parent miserable. She is not being malicious. She does not want to be “bad”. She is telling the parent in the only way she knows how that something is wrong. Remember: Children do not understand their own feelings and therefore have great difficulty in expressing the roots of their behavior. It may be something that just happened, or it may reveal undercurrents that have been there for a while (such as abuse or fear). Unconditional love holds that children do not want to act badly. So when young children pitch a fit, or refuse to do as they said they would, this should be understood in terms of their age and their inability to discern the source of their unease or express their feelings in more appropriate ways.
Research has shown that the use of conditional love by parents has negative effects on the child’s entire life – and on society. Children who received approval from their parents only if they acted in a particular way were a bit more likely to act that way – even in adult life; but the cost of this strategy is substantial. The adults whose parents showed only conditional love were much more likely to feel rejected and, as a result, to resent and dislike their parents throughout their lives. Since they had consistently received less affection whenever they failed to impress or obey their parents, their relationships with their parents were likely to be strained.
More worrisome is that researchers at the University of Denver have shown that teenagers who feel they have to fulfill certain conditions in order to win their parents' love all too often end up not liking themselves and are therefore crippled in developing relationships. How can anyone love or care about others when they do not love themselves?
What kind of implications could this have on society? Society ends up with too many adults who think that good things must always be earned, never given away, never a gift. Indeed, many people become infuriated at the possibility that this “rule” has been violated. For example, many in our society feel hostility toward welfare and those who rely on it. Look at the rampant use of rewards for performance; or the number of teachers who define anything enjoyable (like recess) as a treat, a kind of payment for children living up to expectations. It is believed in our society that people shouldn't get something for nothing – not even happiness…or love.
Children need to be loved just as they are, and for whom they are – unconditionally. When that happens, they can accept themselves as fundamentally good people, even when they make mistakes, including horribly enormous ones, and fall short of parental expectations. Growing up with unconditional parental love causes the child’s cup to “runneth over” – and she then has the capacity to love and help others.
Some parents say that they discipline their children in this way because they love them – the old “this will hurt me more than you” routine. Yet, parents saying they love their children is not the same as how the children experience that love. Does the child feel loved? A parent can tell a child “I love you” over and over, but if actions do not show love then the child does not feel loved.
Words of love mean nothing if not followed by actually showing love.
Children have the capacity to be compassionate or aggressive, altruistic or selfish, cooperative or competitive. A great deal depends on how they are raised – including, among other things, whether they feel loved. A parent’s unconditional love should be purely and simply a gift – like God’s grace – to which all children are entitled.
Unconditional love is the necessary kind of love that parents must give their children in order for them to flourish and do well in their adult lives.
Source: Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason, by Alfie Kohn.
Let me expound upon that theme.
Emotional cruelty is a hidden cruelty and often very damaging to a family for multiple generations. A parent’s cruel, conditional love is most often repeated by the grown children toward their children – hence, the Bible verse about the sins of the father: “He committed all the sins his father had done before him.…” (1 Kings 15:3)
In the book Unconditional Parenting, Alfie Kohn looks at the difference between loving your children for what they do and loving them for who they are. The first sort of love is conditional, which means children must earn it by acting in ways their parents deem appropriate or by performing up to their parents’ expectations. The second sort of love is unconditional: It does not depend on how children behave or whether they are successful at what they do.
Parents all too often place conditions on their love in order to control their children. In fact, although this type of parent will believe they are being controlling out of love, it is really all about power and control. They view the child as a piece of clay to be shape in whatever form they want their child to be. They see the child's brain as an empty vessel to be filled with their own beliefs, personalities, etc – a 'mini me' per se. They are led to do so not only by what they were raised to believe, but also by how they were raised – conditioned to be conditional in giving love – causing the cycle (sins of the father) to continue. The child has to have a very strong personality to break the accepted behavior pattern after generations of “sin”.
The root of this type of thinking has crept deep into American consciousness. In fact, unconditional acceptance seems to be only an ideal: An Internet search for variants of the word ‘unconditional’ mostly turns up discussions about God or pets. Apparently, it is hard for many people to imagine love among humans without strings attached. For a child, some of those strings have to do with good behavior and some have to do with achievement.
Conditional love relies on discipline techniques whose only purpose is to make kids act – or stop acting – in a particular way. It is manipulative and controlling. It is like making a child say, “I’m sorry.” Apparently the parent hopes that making the child say it will make it true. There are no explanations. The child is not really taught anything except that when one is caught being bad, saying “sorry” will possibly deflect punishment. Nothing matters except the stuff on the surface. There are no questions about who kids are, what they think or feel or need, or why they behaved badly. There is no thought of motives and values: The idea is just to change the behavior.
This belief in harsh punishment, in breaking a child’s spirit, not only reflects an assumption about what kids learn in a given situation or how they learn, it also reflects a jaundiced view of children – and, by extension, of human nature. It assumes that, given half a chance, kids will take advantage of anyone or any situation as in the old saying, “Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.” According to this belief, acceptance without strings attached will be interpreted by the child as permission to act selfish, demanding, greedy, or inconsiderate. In other words, the belief in conditional parenting is based on the deeply cynical view that accepting kids for who they are allows them to be bad because that is who they are. It is true that those consequences are possible if one does not properly use teaching moments.
Children act out for many different reasons, some of which may be hard to discern. Parents, in their attempt to discipline, should not ignore the reasons behind the behavior and only respond to the behavior. For example, a 4-year-old may be defiant because she's worried about the implications of the new baby getting so much attention. She is worried that she is no longer loved and is expressing her fear the only way a 4-year-old can. The parents should deal with the 4-year-old’s feelings, not merely try to stomp out the way she's expressing her fear. Unconditional parenting assumes that behaviors are the outward expression of feelings and thoughts, needs and intentions. In this case, punishment is not necessary and would actually be the wrong thing to do. There is one overriding imperative: she needs to feel loved. Unconditional love means to nurture – not control. It's the child that matters, not just the behavior by itself.
Unconditional parenting is not a fancy term for letting kids do whatever they want. It does not throw out consequences or punishment altogether. Punishment is allowed – but it cannot be unreasonable or harsh. And it should not be physical – as in beatings with a belt or other instrument of torture. It is very important (once a child’s bad behavior has passed and penance served) to teach, to reflect together – then reinforce the love. Whatever lesson a parent hopes to impart is far more likely to be learned if the child knows that their parent’s love was not diminished by how she acted.
The unconditional approach to parenting begins with the reminder that the child is not trying to make the parent miserable. She is not being malicious. She does not want to be “bad”. She is telling the parent in the only way she knows how that something is wrong. Remember: Children do not understand their own feelings and therefore have great difficulty in expressing the roots of their behavior. It may be something that just happened, or it may reveal undercurrents that have been there for a while (such as abuse or fear). Unconditional love holds that children do not want to act badly. So when young children pitch a fit, or refuse to do as they said they would, this should be understood in terms of their age and their inability to discern the source of their unease or express their feelings in more appropriate ways.
Research has shown that the use of conditional love by parents has negative effects on the child’s entire life – and on society. Children who received approval from their parents only if they acted in a particular way were a bit more likely to act that way – even in adult life; but the cost of this strategy is substantial. The adults whose parents showed only conditional love were much more likely to feel rejected and, as a result, to resent and dislike their parents throughout their lives. Since they had consistently received less affection whenever they failed to impress or obey their parents, their relationships with their parents were likely to be strained.
More worrisome is that researchers at the University of Denver have shown that teenagers who feel they have to fulfill certain conditions in order to win their parents' love all too often end up not liking themselves and are therefore crippled in developing relationships. How can anyone love or care about others when they do not love themselves?
What kind of implications could this have on society? Society ends up with too many adults who think that good things must always be earned, never given away, never a gift. Indeed, many people become infuriated at the possibility that this “rule” has been violated. For example, many in our society feel hostility toward welfare and those who rely on it. Look at the rampant use of rewards for performance; or the number of teachers who define anything enjoyable (like recess) as a treat, a kind of payment for children living up to expectations. It is believed in our society that people shouldn't get something for nothing – not even happiness…or love.
Children need to be loved just as they are, and for whom they are – unconditionally. When that happens, they can accept themselves as fundamentally good people, even when they make mistakes, including horribly enormous ones, and fall short of parental expectations. Growing up with unconditional parental love causes the child’s cup to “runneth over” – and she then has the capacity to love and help others.
Some parents say that they discipline their children in this way because they love them – the old “this will hurt me more than you” routine. Yet, parents saying they love their children is not the same as how the children experience that love. Does the child feel loved? A parent can tell a child “I love you” over and over, but if actions do not show love then the child does not feel loved.
Words of love mean nothing if not followed by actually showing love.
Children have the capacity to be compassionate or aggressive, altruistic or selfish, cooperative or competitive. A great deal depends on how they are raised – including, among other things, whether they feel loved. A parent’s unconditional love should be purely and simply a gift – like God’s grace – to which all children are entitled.
Unconditional love is the necessary kind of love that parents must give their children in order for them to flourish and do well in their adult lives.
Source: Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason, by Alfie Kohn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)