Children: Training For Life, Important Points

Children: Training For Life, Important Points

An original essay written

by Edward Fagan.

Training and adults  

Children: their training for life is important for several reasons. These reasons include, developing in them good and regular habits of behaviour that contribute to their personal wellness and circumstances.  These habits of behaviour are morally just toward others and themselves; and also help them to become socially graceful.

Others must assist and train them in developing such habits of behaviour. They are unable to develop these habits of behaviour on their own, given their level of immaturity.

The average level of immaturity and underdevelopment in children does not cause them to suffer any serious disadvantage. It gives them, on the contrary, freshness of mind and an eager willingness to learn and let others guide them.

(The parent, guardian and child care-giver should be clear about what they intend to pass on. They will pass on what they intend to, by way of instruction and example, to those children under their care . Their calling expects that they understand the relationship between indifference to training children and its consequences. That calling also expects that they understand training children in the right way and its advantages.)

Training children

Children develop good, as well as bad, regular habits of behaviour best during early childhood. They also, generally, form bad habits of behaviour where they do not develop good habits. We know what happens when children develop such bad habits of behaviour during the early years.

Younger children develop correct habits more easily than they understand concepts and principles. They doing so is also more immediately important at this stage of their development.

Understanding underlying concepts and principles behind the correct habits becomes easier as children grow older. Younger and other adolescents should understand these underlying concepts and principles, and their relationship to good and bad habits.

They should understand the connection between their actions, right and wrong, and the consequences of these to themselves and others.

Training our little ones draws on several areas of knowledge and practice. It is concerned with correctly influencing and shaping the thinking and action of young innocent persons.

Discipline and other factors

Occasionally, adults must act to prevent undesirable thought and action from becoming rooted in the minds and behaviour of children.

We can use discipline, simple and appropriate, to help us implant correct thought and behaviour, as may be necessary occasionally.

Early childhood training and development of good regular habits of behaviour contribute to the building of character. Such character affects how we relate to ourselves, and to others as individuals and members of social groups. It also affects how we relate to institutions of the sovereign state in which we live, and to God.

Parents, guardians and others who are responsible for nurturing children will determine whether they participate in the training of them. They will determine also, what methods of instruction and action they use in their attempt to successfully train them. Parents who refuse to train their offspring, choose to train them in the wrong way and toward the wrong outcome.

By Edward Fagan

Please also see the following post in this blog:

Standing Up For Morality And The Family

Like Edward Fagan Blog on Facebook:

Like Edward Fagan Blog On Facebook

 

Standing Up For Morality And The Family

Standing Up For Morality And The Family Was Necessary On This Occasion.

This is an original essay written by Edward fagan. 

Standing up together for a common cause is something that both government and opposition politicians should do more regularly. One occasion when all politicians should have taken this bipartisan approach was following a particular action which occurred in 2013. On this occasion, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a section of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) struck down Section 3 of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). This section relates to such topics as (for federal purposes) government employees insurance benefits, social security survivors’ benefits and bankruptcy. These laws apply to heterosexual couples only.

The section also relates to immigration, filing of joint tax returns and a scope of other laws. This scope of laws includes protection of (heterosexual only) families of federal officers.  It also includes financial aid eligibility laws, and federal ethics laws applying to heterosexual spouses only.

Those seeking to redefine marriage and the family, obviously, would want to have SCOTUS struck down this section of DOMA.

Standing up for DOMA

This bipartisanship was very evident in May 1996 when both government and opposition politicians voted for the same cause. The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed Congress and the Senate by large majorities. This bipartisanship thus contributed to the DOMA being signed into law in September, 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

DOMA defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also defines “spouse” as a partner in a legally recognized heterosexual marriage.

Four out of the nine SCOTUS judges voted in favour of upholding Section 3 of the DOMA. Their position is the correct one, and very noteworthy. The other five judges, clearly, misinterpreted part or all of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

All elected office holders who favoured upholding the DOMA should have highlighted the voting position of those four judges. They should have upheld the voting position of those four judges locally and nationally. They then should have considered using that voting position as the rallying cry for their upholding it in practice. This would be a very good case of the ultimate bipartisanship. It would also be a valid case of the end justifying the means.

By Edward Fagan