Brian Baxter *

September 2004

[In punishing children] there is wisdom in using an object e.g., a wooden dowel
- Bill Muehlenberg, currently National Vice-President of the AFA.
[For full quote, see 'Corporal punishment' section below.]

The Australian Family Association tries to maintain a respectable public image, but a careful study of its publications reveals the group’s extreme Religious Right ideology. Here is a selection of quotes from AFA newsletters and magazines, and by AFA leaders and supporters in daily newspapers, other Religious Right periodicals, etc.

It is my contention that, despite its title, the AFA represents only a small proportion of Australian families.

What do you think?

Child abuse

While the debate over what to do about ‘child abuse’ is fraught with many difficulties, AFA has consistently pursued the line that governments should do nothing which might infringe ‘parents’ rights’, a term which it defines very broadly indeed. While AFA excoriates those who have exaggerated the extent of child abuse, it frequently engages in hyperbole of its own in the interests of maintaining near-untrammelled ‘parental rights’:

Personal safety or ‘protective behaviours’ programs are rapidly being introduced into schools across Australia. They are said to provide self-protection guidance for very young children against forms of ‘child abuse’ which are described as ranging from parental scolding and low self-esteem to actual physical and sexual abuse … Some of the programs for children are heavily influenced by feminist ideology … [P]arents may be told that current research indicates that 10 per cent of children are likely to be ’sexually abused’ before they reach eighteen. It is also frequently suggested to parents that at least one in four girls is likely to be ’sexually abused’ before she reaches eighteen. None of these figures has any basis in reliable statistical research. Those who use these terms ‘child abuse’ and ‘child sexual abuse’ to promote the need for personal safety programs for children, often do not use them in any legal, medico-legal, or normal sense of those terms, but in a wider artificial definition that includes parental scolding as child abuse, and leering and wolf-whistles as sexual abuse … The fact that extreme feminists support the programs as instruments for ‘consciousness raising’ with little children is also a matter of concern.
- ‘How Safe are “Personal Safety Programs”?’, [Australian Family Association] Family Update, Sept.-Oct. 1992, 1-2
[Note that this unsigned article is entirely undocumented.]

… Child abuse is defined so loosely and vaguely that scolding, spanking, or raising one’s voice can be regarded as abuse. Indeed, abuse includes vague concepts such as ‘emotional neglect’ or ‘educational neglect’. Thus withholding TV-watching privileges or practising home-schooling can be considered abuse … [M]andatory reporting fosters a climate of suspicion, fear, mistrust and paranoia. Worst of all, children are taught to fear and suspect the very ones they most need – their parents … Moreover, too many non-experts – teachers, social workers – could be forced into reporting, whereas only qualified personnel, for example, medical practitioners, should be involved in such reporting …
- Unsigned, but almost certainly written by Bill Muehlenberg in editorial capacity, ‘Child Abuse’, Family Update, Mar.-Apr. 1993, 1-2

…[A] few weeks ago Moira Rayner, convenor of the Children’s Rights Coalition, suggested that one way to curb child abuse was to make spanking illegal. And various mandatory reporting programs, either already in operation or being proposed, also tend to adversely [a]ffect the family. Thus there is a need to spell out the importance of parental authority, especially the right of parents to discipline their children.
- Unsigned, but almost certainly written by Bill Muehlenberg in editorial capacity, ‘AFA Bookshelf’, Family Update, May-June 1993, 6

Here, Muehlenberg went on to recommend the work of James Dobson, an American Religious Right leader. Like Muehlenberg, Dobson is a strong supporter of corporal punishment in the home (only when ‘necessary’, of course!) Dobson’s views on ‘one of the most common causes’ of the physical abuse of wives by husbands may also be of interest here:
Here’s the situation. The husband is not a very verbal person and is rather passive. He’s not meeting his wife’s needs. She is deeply angry about this and her approach is to bludgeon the tar out of him … [S]he is hammering him verbally. He can’t handle that verbally. He cannot hold his own with her in words because she’s a far more verbal person than he … And she is tearing him and she is attacking him and she is just giving him what [for] all the time. And finally he gets so frustrated that the only thing he knows to do is to respond with power and he turns around and beats her up.
- James and Phyllis Alsdurf (1989) Battered into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home (Intervarsity Press), 67

Elsewhere Dobson has written:
[Once a husband] has lost control and lashed out at his tormentor [i.e. wife], she then sports undeniable evidence of his cruelty. She can show her wounds to her friends who gasp at the viciousness of that man … In short, by taking a beating, she instantly achieves a moral advantage in the eyes of neighbours, friends and the law … I have seen women belittle and berate their husbands until they set them aflame with rage … Finally, the men reach a point of such frustration that they explode, doing precisely what their wives were begging them to do in the first place …
ibid., 69

Conspiracy/paranoia

The breakdown in family and the related social malaise are now so widespread that we take them for granted. At the same time, the idea of family as foundational to society is slowly becoming a thing of yesterday, a matter of personal choice which must fit in with other competing choices of our ‘lucky country’. This provides the climate for political, commercial and ideological interests to step in and weave family and community values into their agendas [sic]. Governments, the courts, health/drug managers, the media, the biotech industry, the child-care industry etc. All seem to act as an affront on [sic] family, an assault on kids.
- About the AFA of Queensland [2004], 1-2 – www.family.org.au/qld/about-us.html

Contraception

… [I]t is perhaps time that Protestants started giving some consideration to the issue of contraception. After all, … Protestants prior to 1930 shared the same view on the issue as Catholics … [O]ne has to wonder why the Christian Church should have been so united for so long in denouncing the use of contraceptives. The truth is, there are many reasons why we should be suspicious of contraception. There are … some very real ethical concerns about contraception. The chief worry is that many contraceptives are actually abortifacients. That is, they actually kill a live unborn baby … For this reason, Christians of all persuasions should reject many forms of contraception just as they reject (or should reject) abortion.
- Bill Muehlenberg, book review of Open Embrace in AD2000, Sept. 2002 – www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2002/sep2002p.16_1133.html

Corporal punishment

While every aspect of ‘Children First’ [by Penelope Leach] may not be agreeable to AFA members (it comes out against spanking, for example), on the whole it is a very sensible and practical book. It may pose a threat to the radical feminists and government bureaucrats …
- Unsigned, but almost certainly written by Bill Muehlenberg in editorial capacity, ‘Children – First or Last?’, Family Update, May-June 1994, 7

Suggested legislation which would ban the smacking of children, except with an open hand, is counterproductive. In addition to turning hundreds of thousands of parents into petty criminals overnight, such legislation, if enacted, would further undermine parental authority. Moreover, there is wisdom in using an object, e.g., a wooden dowel. First, it disassociates the punishment from the parent. Otherwise the hand of the parent might become an object of fear, instead of love and affection. In the same way animal trainers recommend using an object instead of the hand. Second, it allows a cooling off period. The minute or so needed to fetch the object may help defuse the parent’s anger … To call smacking ‘violence’ is to both distort the meaning of the term and to undermine the collected wisdom of the ages that said ’spare the rod, spoil the child’ …
- Bill Muehlenberg, letter in Herald Sun, 19 Oct. 1998, re-printed in Salt Shakers Newsletter, Nov. 1998, 11

Divorce/Family Law Act/Australian Institute of Family Studies

The decay of the Australian family can be attributed primarily to four causes: the Family Law Act[;] the revolution in sexual relationships … [;] the control of critical sections of teaching in secondary and tertiary institutions, of the media and of the bureaucratic apparatus by a well-organised group of radical feminists; and … the industrialisation of married women … [Two of these] seem to me to require special emphasis – namely the consequences of the Family Law Act, the brainchild of the late Mr Justice Murphy; and the social consequences of the industrialisation of more than half of the married women in this country … The Family Law Act effectively transforms lifetime marriage into licensed cohabitation, arguably with less legal standing than concubinage had under Roman Law.
- B.A. Santamaria ‘The Year of the Family?’, [Australian Family Association] The Australian Family, March 1995, 8-10

Regarding a statement by then Family Court Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson that the law no longer regarded children as the ‘property’ of their parents:
That’s right, we certainly wouldn’t want to maintain any outmoded ideas about parents having some kind of claim to their own children. That concept went out with the hula hoop. In today’s progressive, politically correct world, we all know that children are the property of the state to be released to parents when it sees fit.
- Bill Muehlenberg, letter in Herald Sun, 12 Sept. 1995, re-printed in Family Update, Nov.-Dec. 1995, 6

Set up in 1980, and with an annual budget of over $3 million, the [Australian Institute for Family Studies] has done little if anything for traditional families. But it has done tremendous good for the feminist lobby … Its latest push is for androgyny, that is the complete role reversal of men and women. This reasoning springs from the belief that not only are there no real differences between men and women, but that gender itself is a social construct. So today you can be heterosexual, tomorrow homosexual, and the next day bisexual, etc.
- Bill Muehlenberg ‘The War Against the Family’, Salt Shakers Newsletter, May 1996, 5

Concerning a 1998 Federal Parliamentary Committee Report on marriage and the family:
… There are a few shortcomings … None of the recommendations refers to the Family Law Act of 1976, and the destruction it brought with its no-fault divorce provisions. Evidently, any thought of reforming, let alone rescinding, this nefarious Act, was considered to be too hot a potato, so was ignored altogether. But given that this Act is one of the major root causes of our difficulties today, marriage will not be fully resurfaced and restored until it is dealt with.
Another area of concern is the Australian Institute of Family Studies. For nearly two decades now the misnamed Institute has been promoting pretty much the standard feminist line on most issues. Thus we hear the AIFS telling us time and time again that divorce does not hurt children, that day-care is not detrimental to the well-being of children, that what we really need is an androgynous role-reversal, where more men stay at home while more women enter the paid work force etc., etc. The Institute really has been the Institute for Feminist Studies …
- Bill Muehlenberg ‘Putting Marriage Back on the Map’, Salt Shakers Newsletter, Aug. 1998, 12-13

Education

Most teachers have been educated and trained in CAEs or universities, secular institutions where left-wing ideologies frequently dominate, where Marxism and Humanism often underpin education courses … The good teacher cannot fulfil all his obligations to the child if he is an atheist, agnostic, humanist, communist or the like, and he allows these beliefs to influence his teaching. In church schools he must be (or ought to be) a committed Christian and parents expect this. In government schools this may not always be possible, but much more care could be taken in the selection of persons for training as teachers and in their appointment to schools …
- Rupert Goodman ‘The Teaching of Values – But Whose Values?’, The Australian Family, April 1999, 30. [Goodman is a long-time AFA Patron.]

Evolution

If young people are constantly bombarded with the idea that life has no meaning or purpose, that human beings simply evolved out of some primordial ooze, and are drifting into a meaningless future, then the question that needs to be asked is, why not suicide?
-Bill Muehlenberg ‘Youth Suicide and Secularisation’, Salt Shakers Newsletter, June 1997, 4

Darwinistic evolution is a competing worldview to the Biblical Christian worldview. One may hold to one or the other, but they cannot be held to simultaneously … [T]he degree to which the church has uncritically accepted [evolution] is [most] alarming … Unfortunately this materialistic worldview has had an all-pervasive stranglehold over much of society. It has become accepted as fact and is the standard pap given to students, heard in science lectures and paraded in philosophy classes …
[After briefly reviewing the work of anti-evolution authors Denton, Johnson and Behe]: These three authors have collectively undermined many of the faulty towers of Darwinism. A few more well-aimed hits and the whole edifice could collapse. Darwinism has been one of the great intellectual superstitions of modern times. Every Christian should … help put to rest the pseudo-religion of Darwinism.
- Bill Muehlenberg ‘Darwinism Under Fire’, Salt Shakers Newsletter, May 1998, 7-8.

Exaggerations

[Your] article on victimhood rightly points out that we have become a nation of victims – everyone is claiming victim status, while eschewing personal responsibility for their behaviour.
- Bill Muehlenberg, letter in Bulletin, 13 June 1995, re-printed in Family Update, July-Aug. 1995, 3

People who adhere to religious and moral values today are scoffed at. We are told there is no difference between Mozart and Marilyn Manson. We are told that any belief system is as good as another.
- Bill Muehlenberg, letter in Sunday Age, 23 May 1999, re-printed in Salt Shakers Newsletter, July 1999, 11

… [Q]ueer studies, Marxist studies, feminist studies and so on are the norm in most public [i.e. government] schools, while the values that characterise most Australians are rapidly being squeezed out.
- Unsigned book review, almost certainly written by Bill Muehlenberg in editorial capacity, ‘New Family Books’, Family Update, July-Aug. 2004, 6

Family, definition of

Here is a good example of one of Muehlenberg’s favourite rhetorical techniques i.e. the interpolation of exaggerated or even absurd opinions among more innocuous assertions:

The attempt to redefine the family to include various ‘alternative life-styles’, including same-sex couples, ignores the historical and social record, and indicates that society has lost its intellectual and ethical moorings … [This is an attempt] to stand the family on its head … Deviancy has reached such huge proportions … that in order to deal with the problem, we have changed the way we think about normality and abnormality. What used to be regarded as deviant behaviour is now reclassified as normal, and what we used to call normal behaviour we now call abnormal … If we have come so far (or regressed so much) that we can now talk about marriage between members of one gender, why stop there? Indeed, why limit marriage to couples at all? Why not a marriage of three men? Or why not a father and daughter marriage? What about aunts and nephews? Why not whole communities? … [Y]ou are left with no limits whatsoever.
- Bill Muehlenberg ‘What is a Family?’, The Australian Family, July 1995, 6

Homosexual rights

It is when the homosexual lifestyle is crammed down our throats, when public displays of behaviour meant to be provocative and offensive are flaunted, at public expense, that most Australians say ‘enough is enough’.
- Bill Muehlenberg, letter in Age, 8 Mar. 1994, re-printed in Family Update, May-June 1994, 5

The Victorian Government is debating whether to include homosexual activity in changes to its discrimination laws. There are several reasons why it should not … Homosexuality brings with it the consideration of health issues, including, but not limited to, AIDS. Why should employers who … make contributions to superannuation schemes, or operate schemes for which there are no prior health checks, have to admit practising homosexuals to the scheme?
- Bill Muehlenberg ‘This law for gays will be a mistake’, Herald Sun, 6 Oct. 1994, re-printed in Family Update, Jan.-Feb. 1995, 6

Why does the Victorian Government spend millions warning us of the dangers of smoking, while the even more dangerous activity of homosexual behaviour is being promoted and financed by the same government?
- Bill Muehlenberg, letter in Age, 4[?] July 1996, re-printed in Salt Shakers Newsletter, Aug. 1996, 10

There is no feature of modern western culture that is not saturated with the rhetoric and reality of the homosexual rights campaign.
- Bill Muehlenberg ‘The State of the Culture Wars’, Salt Shakers Journal, Feb. 2001, 3

[Viewpoints on matters such as homosexuality must be determined by] … a careful examination of the biblical text … [O]ne must be [disturbed] to see that situations are being used to judge Scripture, instead of the reverse. Of course, when we pursue that [former] path, any and all behaviours and beliefs can be condoned, no matter how at variance with biblical teaching … Rev. Dr. Peter Carnley [has called for] the blessing of committed same-sex friendships … Why stop there? Why not have God’s blessing on football teams, groups of bank robbers, and stamp clubs?
- Bill Muehlenberg ‘Faithfulness in Fellowship: Reflections on Homosexuality and the Anglican Church’, Salt Shakers Journal, July 2001, 8-9

Multiculturalism

Regarding Keating Government appointments to the National Council on the International Year of the Family, 1994:
Among those appointed to the Council include [sic] the following: Bettina Cass, noted feminist, who has been appointed as Chair. She has a longstanding history of devotion to various feminist causes … Dr Don Edgar, who for over a decade has wavered on the importance of the traditional family … In addition there is a host of exotic sounding names, indicating that the government did its best to get a political[ly] correct, culturally diverse bunch on the Council. If they could only appoint a baby seal and a dolphin, they’d pretty much have a full set.
- Unsigned, but almost certainly written by Bill Muehlenberg in editorial capacity, ‘International Year of the Family’, Family Update, Nov.-Dec. 1993, 1-2

Occult

A powerful and dynamic time of prayer, worship and spiritual warfare took place in the Dandenong Ranges recently. Some 40 people from at least 15 different churches … took part in the third Salt Shakers prayer bus trip … The destination was the Dandenong Ranges, home of numerous witches’ covens, New Age shops and occult groups … The trip up and down the hills was filled with … intercession against the various satanic strongholds. This even included stopping in front of a New Age shop, run by a self-proclaimed witch, getting out and laying hands on the building, binding the spiritual forces within.
- Bill Muehlenberg ‘Salt Shakers Prayer Bus Report’, Salt Shakers Newsletter, Sept. 1996, 13

Persecution of Christians

If current trends continue, you may soon no longer [be able to] receive these [Christian] emails. Indeed, you may soon find most Christian and family literature banned from public circulation. Certain groups are doing all they can to label pro-family and pro-faith literature as ‘hate mail’.
- Bill Muehlenberg, as quoted in Salt Shakers Journal, Dec. 2003, 2

Pornography

Parents would have noticed that the ads on the latest cereal boxes … are not your usual free footy cards type of offer. Splattered throughout the boxes are seductive photos of Pamela Anderson and others from the Baywatch television program … It’s a shame that we cannot even bring home a box of cereal for our children without having to worry about near-pornographic content being displayed. Why can’t we allow our children to be children? Why must we prematurely inflame their sexual desires? Given that Australia is a world leader in sexual assault [sic], surely we do not need more provocative and sexually stimulating advertising.
- Unsigned, but almost certainly written by Bill Muehlenberg in editorial capacity, ‘Uncle Toby’s’, [Focus on the Family Australia] Family Forum, Feb. 1997, 4

Resources

All committee work except that done by members employed by the National Civic Council (which supports the AFA) [my emphasis] is done part-time with no compensation, financial or otherwise.
- About the AFA of Queensland [2004], 4-5 - www.family.org.au/qld/about-us.html

Self-image

The Australian Family Association is Australia’s premier thought and action leader in Australian social policy concerning family and the community … [T]he AFA provides a solid platform for social policy formation and lobbying governments. It … develops its legacy from some 50 years of activity … The AFA’s founder was Bob Santamaria, a man whose initiative and influence for public good remains unrivalled.
- About the AFA of Queensland [2004], 2 - www.family.org.au/qld/about-us.html

Sex education

The assault against innocence has been many-pronged. From the destabilisation of the family and the dehumanisation of the human person, to acceptance of past taboos, to open rebellion against all forms of morality … Support of anti-family thought, and the almost crucifixion [sic] of the young has been achieved under the guise of new freedoms, and with the cooperation of all media outlets and almost all areas of society … After having reviewed several sex education programs I have come to the conclusion that it is of no wonder that the sacredness of human life is absent from the knowledge of children who have attended or have had these programs inflicted upon them … These programs for primary age students, teenagers and family life, stop just short of being legitimised pornography and legitimised advice on the ‘how to’ of sexual practice, whilst remaining deathly silent on purpose of sexuality as intended by God.
These programs, both the junior and secondary, have been devised by individuals whose intention must surely be malicious rather than beneficent …
Premature acquisition of sex knowledge may lead to inappropriate inquisitiveness leading further to inappropriate attempts at testing the newly found knowledge. This we know because thirteen and fourteen year old students have become parents of what is to become an aborted child …
Premature and/or artificial activation, or sexual awakening of a young person, whether through some form of pornographic visual experience, or through sex education or sexual abuse, catapults the individual into an alien or unnatural state of maturity, which he or she is ill-equipped to manage …
[S]ex education programs are designed not to assist the young but to disturb their moral equilibrium and indeed it could even be suggested that there is an element that seeks the corruption of young hearts and minds. Sex education programs are not only destructive but are clearly and unambiguously anti life, and ultimately the antithesis of all that is good and from God.
- Anne Lastman ‘Sex Education and the Young’, The Australian Family, Nov. 2002, 42

Single mothers

Several years ago I was invited to speak at a conference put on by a single mothers’ association … Their reaction to my talk was not exactly enthusiastic. Most of the women there did not seem interested in hearing about forgiveness and self-sacrifice; they were more concerned about asserting their rights and affirming their independence.
- Bill Muehlenberg ‘Marriage in an Age of Rights’, Salt Shakers Newsletter, Mar. 1999, 19

Tolerance and pluralism

Most people thought toleration was pushed to the limits in 1994. It will probably get worse in 1995. The problem is, the term ‘toleration’ in the lexicon of Political Correctness means acceptance of every fringe and minority group and their lifestyles. But such toleration does not extend to traditional heterosexual families or traditional religions, based on the Judaeo-Christian ethic … Many people now believe the one group most subject to vilification, insult and ridicule is the traditional family.
- Unsigned item, but almost certainly written by Bill Muehlenberg in editorial capacity, ‘Action’, Family Update, Jan.-Feb. 1995, 2

Now is not the time to present an emaciated Jesus. The same atmosphere of relativism, religious tolerance and pluralism that confronted the early church confronts us today.
- Bill Muehlenberg ‘The Crisis of Truth’, Salt Shakers Journal, Aug. 2002, 5

Truth, nature of

… [A]dvocates of truth are [allegedly] intolerant and deluded. All of which sounds good to selfish secularists who wish to indulge every whim and to cross every boundary … [A] recovery of the authority of scripture and a willingness to follow Christ, not the most recent social trends, is the need of the hour.
- Bill Muehlenberg ‘The Crisis of Truth’, Salt Shakers Journal, Aug. 2002, 3-4

Women’s rights

In the coming battle against an international totalitarian feminism backed by the UN bureaucracy, it may be that the Islamic countries and the poor countries of the South will be our best hope.
- Rita Joseph ‘From Cairo to Copenhagen’, The Australian Family, March 1995, 48

The modern feminist woman denounces society’s traditions regarding women and believes they must be stamped out of our consciousness … [M]odern feminism is Marxist, even if some feminists do not realise this … [W]omen violently abuse their husbands just as frequently as men abuse their wives …
[T]he modern feminist is after POWER [author's emphasis] and the self-appointed leaders of the movement intend to gather it all into their own hands, dictating its allocation at both the national and international levels.
- Jacqueline Kasun ‘Economics and Gender’, The Australian Family, July 1995, 16, 18, 21

[Q.] Does QLD AFA believe in equality between the sexes? [A.] Absolutely, all people have equal dignity and have a right to choose their own roles and directions noting that there’s a difference between equality in dignity and equality in role. [N.B. A few weasel words here?]
Generally speaking, [men] and women are suited to different roles. Most people, bar the politically correct, say this all the time. In the interests of children, and healthy families, the AFA says unabashedly that mothers are superior nurturers than fathers …
- About the AFA of Queensland [2004], 6 - www.family.org.au/qld/about-us.html

Working mothers

… [G]overnment policy, and feminist ideology, insist that the only place for a woman – whether a mother or not – is in the paid workforce. I know it is not politically correct to say so, but women can have it all (children and careers) although not necessarily at the same time.
- Bill Muehlenberg, letter in Australian Financial Review, 27 Sept. 1993, re-printed in Family Update, Nov.-Dec. 1993, 5

For years we have been clobbered over the heads, forced to believe that the only good woman was a working woman … [F]or too long women who chose to stay at home to be with their young children have been made to feel like social pariahs. It is not only the mums who have suffered. What about the generation of young children being raised by strangers?
- Bill Muehlenberg, letter in Age, 5 May 1998, re-printed in Salt Shakers Newsletter, June 1998, 11

It was surprising to learn that stay-at-home motherhood is simply a ‘western and a twentieth century construct’ (25 April ['War Cry'] editorial). Such words seem more appropriate in the lexicon of a radical feminist than in a Salvation Army newspaper. They are not only ideologically nefarious [sic], but they happen to be incorrect … [I]t seems odd that you should seem compelled to further undermine the validity and historicity of motherhood.
- Bill Muehlenberg, letter in War Cry (Salvation Army periodical), 6 June 1998, re-printed in Salt Shakers Newsletter, July 1998, 11

Women are losing their choices, not expanding them, when they follow the feminist script. Women in fact tend to like having babies and raising children – it is part of who they are. So it does no good for feminists to say to women that they should deny these instincts and seek instead careers and power …
- Unsigned book review, almost certainly written by Bill Muehlenberg in editorial capacity, ‘New Family Books’, Family Update, July-Aug. 2004, 7