John Murtari’s Eyewitness Account of this Weekend’s Rally in Washington DC
This past weekend the “Bringing Children and Families Back Together” rally was held at the National Mall in Washington DC. John Murtari, a New York shared parenting activist, wrote an eyewitness account of the rally. He also posted over two dozen pictures of the rally.
To read Murtari’s account, click here.
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
August 20th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I read John’s comments and became even more disappointed in the conference, admittedly I wasn’t there. I was confused by his last paragraph and had a hard time grasping the gist of what I hope was his sarcasm.
But look at the quote from the “Reverend” at the pre-conference session at the hotel. he said something to the effect, “this isn’t just about Mother’s or Father’s, it is about children and families”. On the surface this appears to be quite reasonable, very compassionate, and balanced, oh the balance.
But look again. In church this would be about as pro-father as we would ever see. But what about outside the church? Did we EVER hear feminists say it wasn’t just about “men and women, but rather children and families”? Absolutely not!
It was and is about women, women, women. And it will require a focus on men, men, men to swing the rusted and stuck pendulum. This doesn’t mean the MRM comes AGAINST women. It means it comes FOR men, to promote policies that eliminate anti-male laws in tangible ways, and guide consumerism to avoid anti-male advertisements. It also recognizes that in this case, what is good for men is by default good for families and marriage because men just want to level the field, discourage divorce, and give kids and dads a chance again.
To say that women will be “harmed” by this is correct in a perverse perspective, but the harm comes by removing same from men.
This rally, with the exception of Baskervile and some others, what happens when men try to appease and appeal. The F4J guys accomplished more then all the blathering on the mall will ever.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Women have successfully conditioned men to “overcompensate” their efforts to not only not confront women, but to also not have the appearance of promoting anything that can be even remotely seen as threatening to women. Anything even remotely pro-men is now interpreted as anti-women.
It’s time to consider another country to call home.
August 20th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
The man vs. woman dogma is what the trial lawyers feed off. The billable hours multiply as the 2 parties war; they prey on weakness and exploit emotions. The Church does similar damage because it places too much emphasis on marriage. They preserve the marriage at all costs, irretrievable or not; aiding and abetting the unscrupulous lawyer snakes. The emphasis should be on the parent-child bond, not the parent-parent bond. That parent-child bond is a permanent, eternal bond. It’s a strong bond that is more difficult for the lawyers to weaken.
This past weekend an illegal immigrant with child was deported. She has not identified the father. The news media places no emphasis on the child’s right to be raised by both parents. In a just world, this woman would be charged with a crime for denying her child’s natural right to be raised by her father. The discussion is centered on whether you can deport her because she has a so-called American child. Deportation or not, she should be convicted of a civil rights violation and do time equivalent to the harm she’s doing to her child. The silence on this point of view is deafening. We need fathers because; males see human rights atrocities logically, while females can be overcome with emotion.
August 20th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I think that John probably was using sarcasm, but I don’t know. New York liberals are very dangerous. I found this quote at Bill Bennett’s website on Lincoln. It supports the message that F4J made every attempt to convey to their audience.
Bishop Matthew Simpson at Lincoln’s Funeral:
“There are moments which involve in themselves eternities. There are instants which seem to contain germs which shall develop and bloom forever. Such a moment came in the tides of the time to our land when a question must be settled, affecting all the powers of the earth.”
“The contest is for human freedom. Not for this republic merely, not for the union simply, but to decide whether the people, as a people, in their majesty, were destined to be the governments or whether they were to be subject to tyrants or aristocrats, or to a class rule of any kind.”
“This is the great question for which we have been fighting, and its decision is at hand, the result of this contest will affect the ages to come. If successful, republics will spread in spite of monarchs all over this earth.”
August 21st, 2007 at 2:17 am
Thanks Glenn. And many thanks to John.
John has superb credentials as a man, a father and an activist. His profound goodness and pacific nature are not to all folks taste but he is a much needed leader in our struggle. But he writes a very balanced article of the event.
I am very glad to see his quiet astonishment that not everyone shared his admiration for the F4J guys. As he said (I paraphrase) they probably did more for the cause that any other aspect of the gathering.
Hear, hear.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:24 am
HMH you are most incorrect I say with respect. You are directly incorrect about the church, indeed today’s church, across denominations, and mostly in those conservative ones do NOT favor marriage at all costs as you say. That is an ill informed perspective I suspect based on media driven paradigm, not of reality “on the ground” in the churches at all. Didn’t you know churches suffer divorce more then those outside?
It is not man vs. women, with the implication of a 2 way aggression in most cases. It is woman vs. man, men, and all things related to man. In the church it is outright woman worship and man admonishment. In the court it is woman attack man defend.
Your comments about children and their relationship to parents are true, BUT, oh for the time when the marriage bond is viewed as sacred as you do that of the child. It is supposed to be so, and acknowledging its weakness as you do is the parapet of the slippery slope, where the sacredness of the Mother child bond is a weapon in the arsenal against men.
Sometimes marriages end, and sometimes kids must be removed from their parents for safety. The extremes that drive the seperation of the child from its parents should be largely duplicated in one’s ability to unilaterally dump a family out of selfish boredom.