A New World Religion Backed by the United Nations

This article was subsequently published at Online Opinion 
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12002


The world is going barking mad with religiosity! While many of us feel that we have known this for a long time, it has always been difficult to find substantial evidence that wasn't countered by arguments of religious vilification.

However, I’m not talking about Islamic suicide bombers, Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland, the abhorrent members of Westboro Baptist Church, ‘pro-life’ radicals bombing abortion clinics, or any of the other examples of minority groups being less than good examples of the faiths they follow.

Instead, I would like to open your eyes to a new pervasive religion that is steadily growing and insidiously lurking in your community. If successful it will have a terrifying impact on the existence of life as we know it.

Regardless of your political views, spiritual beliefs, faith or lack thereof, please bear with me for a moment while I tell you a short story. Even if it sounds a bit familiar, please persevere.

This story is set on a unique world; a smallish blue-green environment with abundant vegetation and teeming with wondrous life forms on land, air and water. In this world, there is a sentient humanoid species who believe that their world has an undefinable, immeasurable and yet omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent energy force that interacts with all life forms.

This force gives them life, nourishes, teaches and provides them with all that is needed to live well and, as if they were its own children, they call this force "Mother".

They recognise that Mother is an indivisible community of diverse and interdependent beings with whom they share a common destiny and to whom they must relate in ways that benefit Mother.

However, their world is confronted by an evil that is attempting to dominate and exploit Mother and other beings. This evil is causing severe destruction, degradation and disruption of the life-sustaining communities, processes and balances of Mother which now threatens the wellbeing and existence of many beings.

They are conscious that this destruction is also harmful to their own inner wellbeing and is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother is sacred. These clans are acutely conscious of the critical importance and urgency of taking decisive, collective action to prevent the evil enemy causing impacts on Mother that threaten the wellbeing and survival of all species.

Sound familiar? No, it isn't the plot from James Cameron's blockbuster, Avatar - but the resemblance is not a mere coincidence. While Avatar has been justifiably compared to the historical and current issues of our own world, it now seems that the lines between fantasy and reality have blurred even further.

Apart from a few tweaks for syntax, everything above in italics is a direct quote from the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth, which was passed in Bolivia on 22 April 2010 at the World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth and has since made its way to the plenary floor (here and here) of the United Nations.

'Mother Earth' has been transformed from a metaphoric and mythical euphemism into pseudo-scientific woo! You have not entered the Twilight Zone; you are not watching a CGI enhanced movie; this is reality and the world is about to enshrine the beliefs of a new-age religion (or a revival of ancient mysticism) into legal rights on par with those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Now, before you retort with “it's all about protecting the environment” or label me a shill for capitalism and corporate world domination, let me correct you. For the record, I am a staunch environmentalist. I believe in, and promote the protection of landscapes, habitats and species. I readily acknowledge that human activity is essentially bad for this world and that we need to curb our greed and consumerism. You will hear no argument from me on those facts.

But, that is NOT the point of this rant. What I object to is the use of pantheistic and Gaia inspired language that, if adopted on an international level in a legal treaty, will have the effect of making "Mother Earth" the new deity of a green-religion forced onto all of Earth's citizens.

No, I am not being overly dramatic. Read the details for yourself so that you can fully comprehend the implications. It is littered with religious undertones and metaphors that have enormous legal repercussions on every human being:

"we must establish systems for governing human behavior that recognize the inalienable rights of Mother Earth and of all beings that are part of her" and

"the fundamental freedoms and rights of Mother Earth and of all beings should be protected by the rule of law, and that the corresponding duties of human beings to respect and defend these rights and freedoms should be enforced by law"

Such statements, when taken to their natural conclusion, imply that you and I cannot even dig a hole in the ground or kill a cockroach for fear of prosecution under some future law. Even cleaning your house might become illegal because of the bacterial colonies that you would destroy in the process!

This is not merely a feel-good unifying statement of our inarguable environmental responsibility as custodians of the Earth. It is a deliberately transformational credo that redefines our very existence and our relationship with all life on this planet.

All of this poppycock has stemmed from the rising groundswell of support for an environmental movement that has ceased to function as a sensible social and political force. It is now, undeniably, a zealous quasi-religious cult that wishes to impose a narrow-minded and anti-scientific view that all life is part of one universal ‘energy force’, which we are now obliged to pay homage to, for all that 'she' has done for us.

This is nothing short of irrational pandering to the fantasies of earth-worshipping, crystal-healing, indigo children. Human beings are now eagerly lining up to be the sacrificial lambs at the altar of Gaia.

This type of international politicking and pseudo law-making will do very little to improve our relationship with the environment or save many species from extinction, but it will make some people feel good as they run naked through the forest with blue birds on their shoulders and rabbits bounding at their feet singing some Disney inspired anthem. Except that the forest is likely to become a restricted area - after all, animals and plants will have a right to exist without any human interference.

This is not an isolated event to be ignored or passed off as the random act of a fringe third world nation. This has been decades in the planning and follows the inclusion of Rights for Nature into the Ecuadorian Constitution in 2008 and the United Nations' proclamation of April 22 as International Mother Earth Day, distinct from Earth Day on March 22 each year.

The UN's own website for Mother Earth Day states:

In 2009, at its Eighth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues requested special rapporteurs to prepare a Study on the need to recognize and respect the rights of Mother Earth. At its Ninth Session, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues will discuss the findings of the study, as well as works toward establishing a Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.

Please note that the United Nations did not act out of mere tokenism. This is a predetermined action to meet a predefined goal and it is sanctioned and supported by the member nations of the UN. Conspiracy theories aside, there is a real agenda in play and it is supported by:

Agenda 21: an initiative of the United Nations that seeks to create a world bound by the principles of sustainable development; and

Codex Alimentarius the UN global strategy to manipulate and control agriculture, food and supplements devised in 1963 and guided by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) with the support of 184 member nations.

All of this is pointing to a future where your current life and lifestyle is marked for demolition as unreasonable restrictions are inevitably placed on the energy you consume, the food you eat, the materials you buy and even the places you are allowed to visit.

The reality for the 7 billion human inhabitants of Earth is that something needs to change; to continue on a destructive path is certainly unsustainable. On that we can agree.

But the answer is not to anthropomorphise the environment, to give rise to a crass spirituality or empower the most weirdly radical movement of the modern era. Nor is it to throw the human race into an era of reliance upon heavily regulated food production by profit-driven corporations reminiscent of the science fiction classic, Soylent Green.

The answer lies in education and self-regulation of our own consumerism. We may not be doing enough in a timely manner, but we are making changes, slowly and surely.

Faith in our ability to succeed on that pathway is far more palatable than faith in Gaia and the religiosity that surely follows.

  

The simple truth

The silliest debate I've seen all year

I was shocked to read on Online Opinion, an article titled Anti-Populationists - the New Imperialists by Malcolm King.

It was the most uncompelling argument I've seen within this forum. Honestly, it is easier to argue with a religious fundamentalist on the existence of God, than to deal with any of the red herrings, straw men, pseudo-facts and nonsensical diatribe espoused by Malcolm.

I'm no fan of the extremist environmentalist movement that would have us reduce to a population of 500 million and survive on a completely vegan lifestyle reminiscent of our ancestral cave-dwellers. But Malcolm has illogically and stupidly tied this mindset to the entire population debate.

Malcolm has stuck his fingers in his ears, plunged his ostrich head in the sand and is singing "la la la - population isn't an issue".

I enjoyed reading his Feb 09 article "We have nothing to fear but hype itself" and suggest that Malcolm has taken this to the extreme by choosing to ignore any sign of any problem anywhere in the world, particularly if it means having to take some personal responsibility for one's over-consuming western lifestyle.

Malcolm claims some superiority without actually providing any evidence to support his argument or disprove the "anti-populationist" view. He appears to have a disliking for Sandra Kanck (and as both he and I are ex-Democrats I can totally understand that feeling *smirk*) but this feeling, rather than logic, seems to be driving his argument.

I particularly like this attack:

The anti-pops use a curious form of syllogism in their arguments which have been used by cults since time immemorial. It goes like this:

a. population is killing the environment;
b. we can save the environment;
c. help us rid the earth of population.

Given that Malcolm also referenced carbon emissions, I presume that he is a believer in man made climate change, so I put the same argument back at him as my proof that climate change is NOT an issue to be concerned about:

The climate-changeists use a curious form of syllogism in their arguments which have been used by cults since time immemorial. It goes like this:

a. CO2 is killing the environment;
b. we can save the environment;
c. help us rid the earth of CO2.

Whoops, Malcolm!

The reality is that the rise or fall in population of any species is known to have dramatic and measurable effects upon any local environment. We've seen it with fish, rabbits, cane toads, locusts, and thousands of others in modern history. Ecosystems while being generally robust and hardy are also delicately trying to maintain balance.

Humans are one of the few, if not the only, global species pervading and having a major effect on the local and global environments. To think otherwise is pure insanity.

The Credit Crunch Explained

Another layman's explanation of the financial crisis has been forwarded to me by my good friend, Adam.

Please refer any further questions, anger, verbal abuse, vigilante justice, death threats and physical torment directly to your bank's senior management, as well as those rogue financial planners, parasitic mortgage brokers and investment con artists :-)


The Credit Crunch Explained

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Berlin. In order to increase sales, she decides to allow her loyal customers, most of whom are unemployed alcoholics, to drink now but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around and as a result increasing numbers of unemployed alcoholics flood into Heidi's bar.
Taking advantage of her customers' freedom from immediate payment constraints, Heidi increases her prices for wine and beer, the most popular drinks. Her sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic customer service consultant at the local bank recognizes these customer debts as valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for undue concern since he has the debts of the alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert bankers transform these customer assets into DRINKBONDS, ALKBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then traded on markets worldwide. No one really understands what these abbreviations mean and how the securities are guaranteed. Nevertheless, as their prices continuously climb, the securities become top-selling items because (insert here the name of your financial advisor) recommended them as a good investment.

One day, although the prices are still climbing, a risk manager of the bank, (subsequently of course fired due to his negativity), decides that the time has come to demand payment of the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. But of course they cannot pay back the debts.

Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations and claims bankruptcy.

DRINKBOND and ALKBOND drop in price by 95 %. PUKEBOND performs better, stabilizing in price after dropping by 80 %.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar, having granted her generous payment due dates, and having invested in the securities, are faced with a new situation. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor.

The bank is saved by the Government following dramatic round-the-clock consultations by leaders from the governing political parties.

The funds required for this purpose are obtained by a tax levied on the non-drinkers.

The journey of life

Human existence is such that we are forever seeking that which we do not have. This desire for a more decadent lifestyle is defined as materialism and capitalism and it is the fuel that drives our economy, pollutes our lives and is destroying the environment in which we coexist with more than 6 billion people and a billion other species.

This competitive race for greater wealth, or perceived ownership value, leaves us with a continual yearning for more. We can, therefore, never be truly happy following that spiral pathway of unfulfilled satisfaction.

It is not until we give up all such desire, to focus only on what we are and what we have within our being, that we will find true happiness. And it comes freely, at no cost to anyone, but with great benefit to ourselves and to the greater world around us.

This doesn't mean that we need to give up on our material life, our possessions or career; it means that by finding and focussing on the inner peace we will become less reliant on drawing happiness from the physical world.

As an Agnostic I'm not religious in the slightest, but a Jewish philosopher once claimed that "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven".

The truth from that analogy is that the journey to physical wealth can cloud all that which offers real happiness in the journey of life.

Catholicism from the inside

Disciples eager to call the shots behind the scenes
Sydney Morning Herald - September 13, 2005
Uncompromising religious convictions inspire members of the Catholic organisation Opus Dei, writes Kate Mannix.

Miranda Devine last week claimed Opus Dei is a "mainstream" Catholic movement. So why is it so secretive? David Clarke, MLC, admits he is a member of Opus Dei. He says it "informs" his views and decisions in the NSW Parliament.

The deputy director of public prosecutions, Greg Smith, SC, is also a member of Opus Dei. He's a former president of the NSW Right to Life Association. His son, Nat Smith, is now on the association's board.

I don't know whether John McCarthy, QC, is a member of Opus Dei, but his son, Anthony, is. McCarthy snr is a close friend of Cardinal George Pell and an equally close friend of the former NSW premier Bob Carr. He is also a mentor to Malcolm Turnbull, MP, a Catholic convert who regularly speaks at Opus Dei's Warrane College at the University of NSW.

John McCarthy is also a member of the senate at Sydney University. Anthony McCarthy is a chaplain there, and also an organiser for the Opus Dei event called Carnivale Christi.

It is not unreasonable that the Smiths and McCarthys will, like Clarke, be "informed" by their religious associations.

What is unreasonable is the lack of candour shown by those with such associations. This crosses denominational boundaries in "holy alliances". Their memberships, connections and intentions are rarely discussed. Their "values" are repackaged and stamped "PG" for family consumption.
They will talk mildly about "values" and "the traditional family". They will point away from themselves and make judicious references to being "mainstream" and reflecting a wider societal "return to values". But there is little evidence of broad-based support, and little awareness of their real values.

This band of brothers has the same goal as the late B.A. Santamaria: to impose a conservative, Christian-influenced set of principles into the legal system and into government policy.

They will not talk about branch stacking in the Liberal Party nor the funnelling of tax dollars into the myriad "pregnancy counselling services" that are essentially fronts for right-wing proselytising.

Take health.

Catholics are pretty good at running hospitals. But in an Opus Deified world, what would a more strictly "Catholic" hospital look like? It could not offer abortions, sterilisations, in-vitro fertilisation or certain plastic surgery, or look the other way when someone, desperately, just wants to die.

Rape victims would not be offered emergency contraception. None of this is allowable under Catholic ethical guidelines. Just ask Dr Amin Abboud, doctor and assistant lecturer in medical ethics and health law at the University of NSW and director of Australasian Bioethics Information. He is also a former information officer for Opus Dei Australia.

In education, Opus Dei is aiming for the "high end". The private Catholic (publicly funded) University of Notre Dame is interested in training doctors and lawyers who will move into public life and apply the values they have been taught.

So here are some values to watch out for: that the church alone is the repository of absolute truth; conscience must be subordinate to the teachings of the church; the "traditional family" should enjoy legal and financial privileges over other families; abortion is always wrong (though killing in war is sometimes right); men are almost always the disadvantaged party in family disputes due to "extreme feminism" rampant in today's society; IVF is a capitalist plot; there is no obligation for the church to be transparent and accountable; labour is best hired on the basis of correct religious convictions; foreign aid is a misuse of public money; Catholic social teaching embraces market forces; economic prosperity and morality go hand in hand; homosexuals are "intrinsically disordered"; global warming is exaggerated; social welfare is best undertaken by the church.

Those who hold these values have a mission to correct all those who are "in error". They do not believe in your right to conscientiously hold an opinion they do not share. They have little sympathy for your pluralism. They have no commitment to your rights, or democracy. Pell said last year: "Democracy is not a good in itself. Its value is instrumental and depends on the vision it serves."

The irony in all this is that according to church teaching from as early as the fifth century, direct action which seeks to interfere with the rightful autonomy of the state is wrong (the Gelasian Doctrine).

Less than 50 years ago, Vatican II confirmed that all have the freedom to exercise their conscientiously held beliefs - even if, from a rigidly Catholic point of view, such beliefs are "wrong".

Hang on to those two thoughts: because that's Catholic.

Kate Mannix was the founding editor of the independent e-zine Online Catholics.

caveat civis

Further to my recent focus on Fred Phelps, the NSW Liberal Party and other Christian terrorists, I now draw your attention to the formation of Australia's first Islamic political party, The Best Party of Allah in Australia.


According to The Australian the party founder, Kurt Kennedy, believes that "all Australians should be living under Islamic law dictated by the Koran" and that we have nothing to fear because "The positive part of sharia law is (about) treating everybody fairly".

All well and good ... IF equality is the foundation stone. Unfortunately it may not be that simple - nor is it right and just!

Despite the spin, Islamic values are NOT exactly the same as those of any other religion, though they are more similar to Jewish or Christian beliefs than either of those religions would care to admit. As such, it is incomprehensible that a nation, especially Australia, should have to base its laws upon any one religion, even Christianity.

Islam, like any other religion (including Christianity) or political ideology, is subject to interpretation as well as the external forces that are invoked when trying to apply theory to a practical world. Communism is a great theory (true equality), but in practice it is unworkable and unjust. Capitalism is equally problematic.

Orwell's masterpiece, Animal Farm, suitably depicts how the forces of power, greed, discrimination and social politicisation of a community evolves from a genuine intent to provide equality, be it from a progressive or conservative perspective.

Evolutionary theory (the survival of the fittest) dictates that it is against our nature to believe anything other than that "some are more equal than others". If we add to these murky waters the widespread indoctrination that must naturally follow any implementation of a state-endorsed religion, then we will encounter a firestorm of fear and bigotry not unlike that seen in Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, and the Crusades era in the Middle East.

Religion and politics are a chaotic mix, just as the suppression of religion in particular nations also breeds unnecessary suffering and malcontent. The separation of state and church is not only a cornerstone of democracy, it is the most fundamental of all human rights - the right to exist as an individual, with thoughts, actions and values of one's own choosing.

I don't deny the right of Kennedy and his supporters to establish an Islamic-based political party, and I have said as much previously on this blog here and here, but I cannot support the intent to establish any form of theocracy, whether it be Christian, Moslem or otherwise. I will also be the first one to stand up to oppose the possible election of any representative from such a group.

The Theocracy Alert - Early warning System is suitably on Orange status, the second highest rating.




[+/-] show/hide this post

Blogshares

I'm still working on my rebuttal to the tripe I exposed last week. All in good time.

Meanwhile, a bit of lightheartedness and a trip into capitalism, blog-style!

If you haven't heard about Blogshares, perhaps you should get acquainted. It is an interesting virtual marketplace designed to experience trading on weblogs instead of companies. It works using similar principles to a share market with share prices moving according to links between blogs. I.e. the more linkages, the more potential traffic, the more valuable a blog becomes.

In order to move the share price of your own blog upwards, there must be an increase in the number of blogs linking to your blog. It is all about networking with other bloggers and utilising systems like trackback, blog rolls, and even rss feeds to improve visibility. Yopu can also drive prices up or down through buying and selling, but that is boring.

Claim your blog (or get it listed) and have a go!

Meanwhile, here are a couple of interesting bloggers:

• The Martian Anthropologist


• The Bulldog Manifesto

Lay off Douglas Wood!

The current debate on whether Douglas Wood should contribute to the costs of his "rescue" is insulting and ridiculous!




Firstly, by the mixed and loosely factual accounts presented in the media, his release could, at best, be described as accidental good fortune. There appears to be little, if any, corroboration of specific intelligence that led to his "rescue". Any such intelligence was more related to the location of insurgents, who just happened to be holding Mr Wood. Their mission was to engage some suspects. Finding Mr Wood was a bonus.



Secondly, and probably more importantly, he was released by Iraqi forces, with the aid of coalition (presumably all US) military. Not a single Australian seems to have been involved in that manouvre. There seems to be no suggestion that Australians were even responsible for the intelligence that sparked the routine mission.



The third point is that, despite Mr Wood being a resident of the USA, it is the duty and reponsibility of the Commonwealth of Australia to protect and serve its citizens, no matter where they are or what their circumstances. Be it Schappelle Corby in an Indonesian prison, Douglas Wood in Iraq, or John Howard visiting the Whitehouse! There should be absolutely no expectation for any citizen to be faced with a bill for what is their inarguable right.



Before I conclude, I will point out, if you can't already see, the hypocrisy of demanding that Mr Wood not be able to profit from his traumatic experience while not a single complaint was heard about similar profiteering by victims like Stuart Diver. What is next? Will the emergency services be sending a bill to people rescued from armed hold-ups or if they fall over a cliff in a national park? Crazy stuff!



We have laws in Australia to prevent criminals from profiteering from their crimes, but Mr Wood is not a criminal, so why should we treat him like one? It is deplorable that we do!



I can only conclude that this is some form of bizarre tall-poppy syndrome. Douglas Wood is safe and seems to be physically none-the-worse for wear. Had he been brutalised, had a limb or two chopped off or suffering severe mental trauma, our sympathy would have overridden any whisper of reimbursing tax-payers. Perhaps it is because he and his family appear to have more than enough for themselves that we want a little for us.



Is it jealousy or greed that is fuelling this obscene call to diminsh this man's harrowing experience? Either way, it has to stop!




[+/-] show/hide this post

The unbridled monster

First it was supermarkets replacing local grocery stores; the local milk round disappeared over night, then the local butcher and fruit n veg shop closed its doors.



Newsagents may still be holding their own to a small degree, but independant liquor stores are on the brink of extinction and petrol stations are becoming a mere branch of the supermarket chains.



Now Woolies want a share of the pharmaceuticals industry.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1363077.htm



If they get their foot in this door (and Coles will rapidly follow), we can be assured that the PBS will be under even greater pressure from our multinational 'friends'.



If this was about deregulation they would be advocating cross pollination of groceries into newsagents, drugs into liquor stores and liquor at your clothing boutique!!



This is quite clearly oligopolistic greed at its most blatant.

History haunts future anthropology

The skeletal remains of an ancient form of hominid found on the island of Flores, east of Java has created excited ripples around the globe, especially among anthropologists. No doubt the find is also creating a bit of annoyance for creationists of varied religions. Good!

Reports in Nature and National Geographic raise more questions than they answer. But there is one question that haunts my mind and the answer makes me fear for the future of any such people.

I question how modern humanity could cope with ever finding another living species of hominid in some secluded location. Imagine the excitement, the rush, the challenge! Scientists, governments, religions, linguists, human rights activists, the media, lawyers and agents of all kind would be high-tailing it to a remote destination. They would all demand to be part of the scoop, the deal, the dollars, the advocacy ... each proclaiming to be working in "the best interests" of the newfound species.

While the probability of such a discovery is less than a three-legged donkey winning the Melbourne Cup, the way some scientists are talking it would be the holy grail of paleoanthropology. I fear that greed, power and ego would take priority over empathy, conservation and human rights. I honestly don't believe that 21st century humanity is any more likely to have respect for such a species than they had for any indigenous humans of the last century and we are still unable to acknowledge such wrongs to many indigenous in this century.

History is riddled with examples of how we have ruined indigenous civilisations, even to the point of their extinction. Contact with modern humans invariably runs huge risks of death through contracting disease, not to mention the cultural corruption of money, alcohol and drugs, religion, education and more.

Could we actually sit back and watch such a powerful discovery from afar without interfering? Could humanity place the rights of these people above the quest for knowledge? I wish I could believe in our ability to not intrude on something so beautiful and rare. I wish I could hope for something more than our shameful precedents offer.

Separated Parenting

Being a non-custodial parent is, I am sure, no more difficult than being the custodial one. However, it is different, it operates under different rules and it provides very humbling experiences at times.

For the most part I manage to cope well with our situation. I see my daughter, Sophie, every second weekend and we have a flexible arrangement so that we can change weekends at a moment's notice if either household has a change of plans.

The flexibility has sometimes meant that there has developed a sense of "it's ok not to go with Dad this weekend if you want to do something else", which has been abused a couple of times.

2 days a fortnight makes for a difficult opportunity to maintain a relationship. Telephone calls are no compensation. Even more difficult is discovering that your child was in a school play or had a sports carnival and no-one bothered to tell you! *sigh*

As some of you might be aware from previous postings, the problems that do arise are usually issues between my ex and myself, often brought about through the interference of my sister (gotta love to hate siblings!).

Inevitably, the major problems have revolved around money - child support is a necessary responsibility, but when there's no money to give the other parent's lack of empathy can seem like a hurricane of greed motivated by the "financial burden" of raising a child. My answer has always been that if it is such a burden, I would gladly take custody and not ask for a dime in child support! The hysteria swiftly ends upon the realisation that the value of having custody transcends any monetary gains.

Other issues have centred around the activities that Sophie enjoys with us compared with what she does with her Mother. I take Sophie to the museums, art galleries, and movies. We've had nights at the theatre and the ballet. Often we will go out to a cafe for an arvo break or have dinner in a restaurant. These are things that Sophie's Mum cannot afford or probably wouldn't choose to do.

In the past, my ex has complained that Sophie is too disruptive on her return home. Perhaps because she has to settle back into a new environment with different rules, or perhaps because she has been excited and wants to relay what she did this weekend.

Occasionally (last weekend being an example) we also have Sophie's half-brother with us for the weekend. That makes a nice change for everyone - allows my ex and her hubby to have some time to themselves (or run a garage sale like they did last weekend) and also changes the dynamics of our household for a short while.

I don't approve of some facets of how Sophie is being brought up, but looking at the big picture they are minor issues and I try to counteract them as best as I can. I think Sophie has benefited from learning to adjust accordingly under the two households.

Being a separated parent is harder on ourself than it is on the kids. They adapt very quickly and, as parents, we tend to put on the brave face and protect them from the disruption and the hurt caused by the separation.

Sophie turns 10 in two weeks time and I'm starting to think about how we will handle access arrangements in her teens, when she starts playing weekend sport or wants to socialise with her friends more than she does presently. New compromises will have to be negotiated, I'm sure.

No matter which way you look at it, being the non-custodial parent can be more difficult personally when having to say farewell for a two-week stint every cycle. I'm ever hopeful that an alternative arrangement is required in the future. I want my chance as a full time parent too.

[+/-] show/hide this post