Dr. Richard Land: April 2008 Archives

Serious and important studies such as Why Marriage Matters, Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences (2002) and Hardwired to Connect (2003) have documented the ravages of divorce and single parenthood on children as well as their mothers and fathers. The significantly increased incidence of divorce, unwed parenthood and alcohol and substance abuse among children of divorce is well-known to social scientists.

It is also well documented that boys raised without their fathers are approximately twice as likely to engage in criminal and delinquent behavior as boys raised in homes with their biological mother and father (Why Marriage Matters). One NFL Hall of Fame football player, who now works full-time with a Christian ministry to the incarcerated, has said that for years now he has been asking all the prisoners with whom he is in contact, “Would those of you who had a good relationship with your father please raise you hand?” The Hall of Famer said he has been asking that question for several years and he is still waiting for the first prisoner’s hand to go up.

Now, a study has been published, The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing, which seeks to detail the financial costs to society resulting from the breakdown of marriage in our society. This new study calculates the financial costs alone to be at least $112 billion dollars a year, resulting from expenses associated with healthcare, criminal justice, welfare and lost income-tax revenue. That means that the breakdown of marriage has cost our country almost $1.1 trillion dollars over the past decade.

The report does not call for any reduction of government services to single-parent families. It does argue that the government should invest in strategies that would strengthen marriages and seek to prevent further breakdown of marriage with all its ravaging costs to society, both social and financial. Surely that is an agenda all Americans can support.

Most living Americans look upon television as a natural home appliance and think no more about its implications than they would electrical lamps or a washing machine. In fact, more American homes have TVs than have washing machines.

Indeed, American homes have more TV sets than people who are domiciled in each residence according to Nielson Media Research. And therein lies the problem.

Studies show that the mere presence of a television in a child’s bedroom increased average viewing time from 21 to 30 hours weekly. In 2002 the journal Pediatrics reported that preschool children with TVs in their bedrooms were more prone to be overweight and in 2007 the journal Obesity confirmed those results. Other studies show that students with bedroom TVs perform more poorly in school and read significantly less than children not “blessed” with the presence of a TV in their bedroom.

A November 2007 National Endowment for the Arts study discovered that the average young adult (17 – 24 years old) spends 2 ½ hours a day watching TV and 7 minutes a day reading.

Furthermore, the content of television grows ever more violent, coarse and vulgar. For example, the Parents Television Council has just released a study that shows that children who watched daytime shows on cable’s BET (Black Entertainment Television) and MTV (Music Television) were exposed to adult content (material of a sexual, violent, profane or obscene nature) once every 38 seconds.

Clearly, no matter how “familiar” a family’s television set—or more accurately, sets—may be, children’s access to them should be monitored closely by parents both in terms of viewing time and content. And all the research shows that in terms of television viewing, less is better.

A couple of days after the 2004 presidential election I received a phone call from a reporter from a national publication. She wanted to know about those “moral values” voters, the 25 percent of Americans who stated in exit polls that moral values were their No. 1 issue. The “chattering classes” were still in shock about both the values voters and the fact they played such a pivotal role in George W. Bush’s reelection (the only president in U.S. history to secure reelection after having won a first term with fewer votes than his opponents).

This reporter wanted to know who these values voters were. I explained that they were Evangelicals by the millions (26 percent of all voters identified themselves as “Evangelicals” in exit polling and they voted 78 percent for Bush). I added that they were also Mainline Protestants (68 percent of those who identified themselves as “traditional” voted for Bush in those same exit polls) as did 72 percent of “traditional” non-Latino Catholics.

Some have argued that such “values” voters have moved to the political center and away from Republicans. Most of these voters, particularly Evangelicals, consider themselves values voters first, and vote Republican when they get a “pro-life” or “pro-family” bonus for doing so. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and American Life, 72 percent of white Evangelicals voted for Republican candidates in U.S. House elections in 2006, and they made up 24 percent of the electorate who actually cast votes.

The moral values voters have altered the political landscape radically. The debate between the secularists and those who believe religious convictions of all faiths have a valid and important place in public policy (i.e. political) debates is over—and the secularists did not win.

How else do you explain Senators Clinton and Obama attending the “Compassion Forum” last Sunday night at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania? This event, telecast by CNN with Campbell Brown and Jon Meacham as moderators, included questions from selected, diverse religious leaders from around the country. (I was invited to participate, but had a previously scheduled preaching assignment that precluded my attendance.)

And what questions they were. Questions about abortion, euthanasia, torture, creation—“Did God really create the world in six days?”—and creation care. Further, we had questions such as, “Do you have a favorite Bible story?” and “Do you believe God wants you to be president?”

To watch the Compassion Forum was to see just how much the political landscape has been transformed by values voters. Can you imagine Howard Dean and John Kerry at such a forum and responding to such questions? I would pay money for a ticket to see that tableau being played out on screen.

Both parties now understand that they have to value and respect “values” voters and even when they disagree with their positions on issues like abortion, at least explain why and attempt to justify their differing conclusions.

Personally, I think that process will make Democrats better Democrats, Republicans better Republicans, Independents better Independents, Americans better Americans, and America a better place.

As anyone interested in the American electoral process knows that on April 6 at a supposedly private fundraiser of extremely affluent, latte-sipping, cheese-tasting, wine-quaffing, limousine liberals at the ground zero of elitism—San Francisco—Sen. Barack Obama uttered these now infamous words:

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

What makes these 36 words so witheringly controversial? The Obama campaign and his defenders are focusing desperately on the “bitterness,” defending the assertion that the blue-collar working class voters in small-town Pennsylvania are bitter over the economic dislocations they have experienced over the past two decades.

However, the problem is not “bitterness” but the verb “cling.” Essentially, Obama sounded like a condescending elitist engaging in socio-economic analysis of these strange inhabitants of fly-over country.

Senator Clinton pounced on her opponent’s faux paus with whippet-like speed. Hillary’s retort: “The people of faith I know don’t cling to religion because they’re bitter. In fact, they embrace their faith because it gives them so much in return.”

Most Americans of faith (and that’s a significant majority of us) do embrace their faith because it brings meaning and purpose to their lives, regardless of economic circumstances.

Obama’s statement indicates that he believes working-class Americans “cling” to guns because they’re economically frustrated and they find comfort in toting around firearms. In other words, religion and guns are emotional security blankets in tough times. Such sentiments reveal egregious ignorance of the role firearms have always played in large swaths of our culture, which has nothing to do with economic status. Then Obama makes things worse by accusing working-class folk of being xenophobic and of scape-goating “people who aren’t like them.”

It’s pretty hard to get people to vote for you when you make it clear you not only don’t like or understand them, but you disdain them.

As Maureen Dowd put it, Obama sounds less like a candidate and more like an “anthropologist . . . observing the odd habits of the colorful locals.” When Maureen Dowd starts making those observations, you know the episode is serious and may have a long shelf life.

I was getting very sleepy as I drove across middle Tennessee the other day, so I stopped to get some coffee at a Waffle House in a rural area.

As I sipped my coffee, I eavesdropped on a conversation among some male blue-collar workers who were raising their cholesterol levels while solving the world’s problems. Sen. Obama’s clinging comments came up and one middle-aged man in bib overalls and work boots said, “I hate to say it, but he sounds like just another limousine liberal to me!” Does this “cling-gate” story have a shelf life—Yep!

In his book, Who Really Cares: the surprising truth about compassionate Conservatives (Basic Books 2006), Syracuse University Professor Arthur C. Brooks demonstrates that "conservatives" give considerably more money and time to charitable causes than do liberals, thus proving that "compassionate conservative" is not an oxymoron.

Once again, Dr. Brooks mugs common cultural perceptions with massive data. In his new book, Gross National Happiness (Basic Books, 2008), Dr. Brooks finds that "conservatives" are happier than "liberals." In fact, Dr. Brooks' research shows that conservatives have been happier than liberals for nearly four decades. Why?

Economically, liberals are statistically "better off" than conservatives. So much for money buying happiness.

Dr. Brooks' research reveals that conservatives are more likely to be married and go to religious services on a weekly basis (twice as likely in both cases).

Conservatives are also more likely to have children, and more of them, than liberals. Dr. Brooks found parents are significantly happier than non-parents.

When one combines being religious with being conservative, such religious conservatives are ten times more likely to say they are "very happy" compared to "not too happy" (50 percent to 5 percent).

Dr. Brooks also finds that "conservatives" are more optimistic about both the future, in general, and the future of their country.

Dr. Brooks seems to be making a habit of destroying cultural myths. Perhaps we should start calling Dr. Brooks, Arthur the Myth-Slayer.

Do "conservatives" give more to charitable causes than "liberals"? According to Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks, they do. Dr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, was quite astounded with the...

Researchers at the University of British Columbia have made a discovery that they found most startling. Mark Holder, professor of psychology at UBC, and his graduate assistant, Judi Wallace, confessed that they were quite surprised when their research revealed that...

April 4, 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Anyone who had reached the age of consciousness by that date remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard...