Healthy families are the bedrock to healthy societies

As we look back in history right up to present day, the assertion that healthy families are the bedrock to healthy societies cannot be denied. Qualities like honesty, justice, selflessness, charity, accountability, commitment and other positive attributes are most successfully instilled in young people through their parents and families. Hopefully societal institutions affirm these sorts of values (which is questionable at times) but they work best as a support rather than usurping the role of parent. Parental engagement is so valuable that we have come to know that young people are at a disadvantage when they lack a good mother or good father in the home.This does not mean that single parent homes are unsuccessful, but it means that those parents have to work extra hard. I know of many single parents who have my utmost admiration and respect because, quite frankly, they are incredible. They ought, not only to be commended, but encouraged and tangibly supported. It is this sort of parenting and family building that contributes to a healthy and successful society. Do some children overcome the great odds of lacking healthy family and become good, moral, upstanding citizens? Certainly. But solid marriages and parents are essential to establishing healthy families which pays dividends in building a healthy society and I would argue that the reason we have positive values in our society today is because many, if not most families fit this bill. There are many good supports that aid families in this endeavour such as church communities and educational institutions to name a couple. But, in an article in the Dec. 2 edition of the Commentator and then the same words quoted again in another article in the Dec. 9 edition I was shocked and dismayed at the words of the Alberta Teachers’ Association president, Jason Schilling. The article on Dec. 2 was about his views on Bill 9 that require information about children struggling with gender dysphoria be disclosed to their parents. Putting aside the use of the notwithstanding clause (which is a very important discussion to have) he is quoted as saying, “Vulnerable students will now risk rejection, punishment or emotional harm because of this gross overstep of power.” This is what he thinks of parents? This language infers that parents are dangerous. Are all parents respectable and completely loving? Certainly not, but I would argue it’s the minority. But Schilling is not speaking in rarities, but in sweeping generalization. Instead of supporting parents, he appears to advocate to undermine and undercut them. I have to strongly disagree. No! Institution does not know best, parents do. Institution does not love most, parents do. If we want to have a healthy society, how can we allow such poisonous thinking in places of significant influence over our children’s education? We must not allow it. Nor can we allow institution to exchange places with parents. Institution supports parents, not the other way around. The very fabric of society is at risk.

George Mills, Bow Island