If you've been reading some of what Nallely's been writing in her blog, you'll know that we've begun to go through the process of becoming foster parents. It is quite a process, which is to be expected, since we would be entrusted with children who are technically the responsibility of the state. Last night and most of today we participated in a "pre-service orientation" session, which is meant to prepare would-be foster parents to receive children into their home.

It has been fascinating to learn what our government thinks of as good parenting, and how certain procedures and policies are justified and explained. What has struck me the hardest is the total incoherence and illogical nature of the philosophy that lies behind the entire exercise. The fact is that the theory that lies behind state-sponsored child rearing simply doesn't make sense.

And, hypothetically speaking of course, should a certain participant in the process attempt to point out the logical inconsistencies, false dichotomies, and just plain silliness that undergirds much of "establishment" thinking, the only response would (I'm sure) be little more than a series of blank looks and a response that goes something like, "Well, thanks for that, now let's move on to the next point."

Of course, this hypothetical person would be free to express his opinion freely and openly, without facing judgment or disagreement, because we live in a pluralistic society and all points of view are tolerated. Indeed, some of these points of view are tolerated and allowed to be aired, after which they are subsequently ignored and subtly ridiculed; but they are tolerated, albeit in the same way in which one tolerates a bad smell or an obnoxious neighbour.

Some examples:

Obviously, corporal punishment is strictly forbidden in the foster system. I can understand and sympathize with this prohibition on physical punishment, for the simple reason that this our government system is by its very nature not a Christian system (although it has an unacknowledged basis in the Christian principle of caring for children who are not otherwise being cared for), and abuses can easily occur when there is misunderstanding about what corporal punishment actually entails.

But the official explanation for this prohibition leaves much to be desired. A false dichotomy is set up between "punishment" and "discipline" (as if the two concepts are mutually exclusive); spanking is termed, "inflicting physical pain" (which it certainly is; surely this is the reason for spanking!), but then it is placed alongside "inflicting psychological pain" as if these two concepts are parallel and equally damaging to a child.

Secondly, if there is one "System Doctrine" that belongs, etched in stone, in the Ministry Holy of Holies, it is that of "respecting and encouraging the child's culture." When I asked if that meant playing reggae for a Jamaican child, I didn't really get a straight answer.

However, one of the case studies that we engaged discussed a child of Middle Eastern background who was abused by her father, kept away from "Western" activities, not allowed to participate in secular amusements, and forbidden from spending time alone with members of the opposite sex. Apparently in this case the child's cultural values are not considered to be nearly as important or worthwhile as those of other cultures; it appears that not all cultures are created equal, after all! But this fact is never acknowledged; it simply goes unsaid, and the issue is side-stepped in a less-than-deft manner. When this inconsistency is pointed out, "Well, let's move on to the next topic..."

Of course, if the child's cultural background includes an emphasis on corporal punishment as an essential aspect of child-rearing, an irresistible force encounters an immovable object, worlds collide, and assumptions are examined.

But no, assumptions aren't examined; they remain, accepted as received wisdom, mutually exclusive beliefs are allowed to dwell side-by-side, and the shaky foundation of secularism continues to support a tottering building.

But I guess this is what happens when the secular state takes on a role it was never meant to have.