Culture, character and poverty

Yeah, we don't want Mexican kids being corrupted by Americans!

**What middle-class liberals see as "liberation" from an oppressive code of sexual behavior amounts to a kind of enslavement of the poor. Middle-class people have greater means, materially and otherwise, to deal with the consequences of their promiscuity, and over time the abandonment of bourgeois values of self-restraint in favor of anarchic underclass values will impoverish the descendants of those who left those values behind. Don't get me wrong, it's still destructive of their soul and character, but for various reasons, the material consequences are mitigated. Not so for the poor, not usually.**

This is not an original idea, Rod, or even a particularly religious or conservative one. Philip Slater (no rightie he) said it in "The Pursuit of Loneliness" nearly four decades ago.

Beautiful post, Rod. Really resonates. Folks are already trying to strip the ideas you present of their "conservative," and "religious" implications, which is par for the course. They'll have to try very hard to convince me.

Thanks, also, for the gorgeous icon from Touchstone. Joyous mystery, indeed!

You had me, Rod, until you started that lame caricature:

"What middle-class liberals see as 'liberation' from an oppressive code of sexual behavior amounts to a kind of enslavement of the poor."

We're talking an essentially libertarian view here, one adopted by the middle class and up, especially by those at the top of the Western cult of celebrity. Didn't you write about this the other day in describing Republicans as wanting "to consume whatever you want, whenever you want it?" Just strike "liberals" and add people. While you're at it, you might want to add "our corporate masters." The Fox network has no problem selling sex without consequences, does it?

Yes, promiscuity can lead to enslavement, but conservatives have transgressed in sex crimes as often as liberals. They're just better at hiding it before they're outed in scandal. Accountability and responsibility are values any economic class can embrace. I just don't see turning this into a liberal-conservative divide is helpful to the point being made. If anyone wanted to get serious about this, they'd soon come up with stiff resistance, and I don't think it would be the liberals putting up the defense.

Todd:

You had me, Rod, until you started that lame caricature:

"What middle-class liberals see as 'liberation' from an oppressive code of sexual behavior amounts to a kind of enslavement of the poor."

Todd, whatever the sins, failings and hypocrisies of conservatives, they don't extol sexual anarchy as liberation.

I appreciate the post, Rod, but how realistic do you think it is to advocate that people move to poor communities and live with them?
I am white, in my 30's, married to a Latino, with two girls. I almost moved into a home a few blocks away in an almost-all black neighborhood. I was talked out of it by several people, black and white, who warned me that my daughters simply would not be safe. I know that sounds racist, but that's what I was told, including by some black residents. It was considered very foolish for me to bring my two daughters into that world. (And I also realized the possibility that my girls would eventually absorb that culture you're describing, just like that Asian family's son.)
So I played it safe and moved into a less-affordable neighborhood that is virtually all white. I would truly be happy to do what I could to live among poorer people to try and reach out to them and show them Christ's love. But at what expense? The safety of my wife and children, when they are singled out for attack because they are not black? It's not worth that to me. I'd rather be in a neighborhood where my ability to raise my own two daughters, which is my first priority, will not be thwarted by the neighborhood culture.

Rod says, "Todd, whatever the sins, failings and hypocrisies of conservatives, they don't extol sexual anarchy as liberation."

Todd replies." On paper, perhaps. But in practice this is far from true."

This is just that old argument, made ad nauseum, that conservatives are bigger "hypocrites" than liberals. Yes, conservatives sometimes fall short of their standards, and sometimes in the public square. They're human. Publicly espousing ideals is risky, especially with the media circling like vultures in search of the next fallen conservative. Liberals avoid this risk by eschewing ideals altogether (the sexual kind, anyway) and saying "anything goes."

To me, the question is whether people of faith are really prepared to do this kind of missionary work and will it help.

The minority underclass (and these posts always seem to be about the minority underclass and not the white underclass) is among the highest church-going of all Americans. Attendance at Black churches, Hispanic-focused Catholic churches, Pentecostal churches, etc. is quite high. So if those institutions have failed to respond to ghetto nihilism. why do we believe OTHER churches will succeed where the traditional churches in these communities have failed.

Secondly, the question is whether churches are prepared to respond. Are white, Evangelicals churches prepared to shift from a culture war against liberals to a culture war inside the underclass? How do people like the Orthodox, who are largely silent on social justice issues and largely devoid of non-whites, going to respond? How are mainline and progressive churches going to convert drive-by, SUV liberal values into real change? How will Catholic churches quit their internal fights over how the mass sounds and focus on what's happening outside the doors of their church?

God's ways are evergreen, Daniel. He calls to the mission field those whose hearts he's prepared.

That question's reserved for the judgement of Christ, Daniel. We are only required to answer for ourselves.

Liberals avoid this risk by eschewing ideals altogether (the sexual kind, anyway) and saying "anything goes."

Liberals don't really think "anything goes," though. I think I'm a pretty typical liberal, and here's my view in a nutshell:

Everyone has the right to have sex, whether they're straight, gay, married, unmarried, kinky, or whatever, and they can do so as much as they want without harming our culture. But I also think that sex is for grown-ups, not children, that casual sex is destructive, and that people who have children should be willing and able to provide those children with a stable home. People form loving, monogamous, moral, and sexual relationships outside of traditional marriage all the time. Those relationships aren't the problem, and we won't solve our cultural problems by eliminating those relationships (even if we could, which we can't).

I would like a world where sex was not in our faces all the time and where we didn't use it to sell things, or for cheap laughs, or to define ourselves as cool/hip/successful/lovable. I can imagine that world containing gay couples (and families) and unmarried couples (and families) as well as tradition married couples (and families).

Mrs. Pringle

Middle-class people, he explained, have so many unexamined assumptions about human nature, and the orderly way the world works.

I just love this line. Unexamined assumptions is exactly right.

"For these kids," he said, meaning children of the black underclass, "having sex at 12, 13 years old is normal. They really don't understand what the big deal is. There's nothing in their culture to tell them that it's wrong.

Let's take this apart.

Exactly why are 13 year olds engaging in sex and having kids by their personal choice "wrong"? Let's have this discussion with our in-house liberal or libertarian...

Religious reasons? How can this be? We live in a country with no "accepted" religious code, only a legal code. There is nothing illegal about two people aged 13 having sex. Keep your religious views to yourself, prude!

Moral reasons? Can't be. We have no agreed set of sexual moral rules in this libertarian country that will get you kicked out of normal society (except you can't be sexist). Everything else goes: homosexuality, sadism, you name it. Keep your moral views to yourself, bigot!

Legal wedlock issues? Huh? We allow no-fault divorce and require child support even with no marriage; so marriage doesn't mean squat to the culture. Keep your traditional marriage views to yourself, sexist!

Biological? Hey, if that was they case, I don't think there would be a pregnacy to worry about. Go back to biology 101, ignoramus!

Fiscal? Hey, if you don't want to give the money away, don't. But don't complain when you give it away and people take you up on it. Quit picking on minorities, racist!

OK, enough fun. But personally, I find it "wrong" that most people engage in sex with no intention of procreating, married or unmarried. I find it "wrong" that people get married without agreeing till "death due us part" regardless of hardship. But don't we all agree that in this country morality is for each of us to decide on our own? Well, we bought the farm.

So let's quit whining that what these 13 old "kids" are doing is any more "wrong" than the standard accepted sexual practices of 95% of Americans. Once we start engaging is sexual acts with no intention of procreating, we have sort of lost our moral high ground. These choices makes good sense to everyone's situation in life.

Ewgh. Too much information!

Viacom (owner of MTV), BET(purveyor of such junk the KKK might as well own stock)and Bad Boy and Death Row Records(subsidiaries of larger publicly-traded companies), last I looked, are not big into the Ron Paul/libertarian ideals. I'd note over and over the likes of Shaprton and Jesse Jackson have been confronted about failing to tackle the images thse sellers of junk convey. But damn, they never get around to it; winder why? To his credit, and probably to the detriment of his bottom line, Bill Cosby, warts and all, has. It's about money. Yes, the record business and enteraintment industry have always been scummy. Now it's an open sewer, emptying into the inner city. If no adult is going to say that such filth is wrong, Sean "Puffy Daddy"Combs(who caused 9 people to be crushed to death after he oversold a rap concert at CCNY in 1989 as he fled with the cashbox of receipts), Sean (Jay Z) Carter(involved in drug dealing from a young age), Calvin (SNoop Dog) Broaddus, Curtis (50 Cent) Jackson(convicted drug dealers ) and host of other miscreant criminals will continue to sell their sewage like soap. No one is stopping them.Heck, they're presented as decent and wholesome. In fact, the inner city is buying in bulk. And they're selling every negative image these kids embrace-denigration of education and delayed gratification, glorification of drugs and guns, treating women like disposable junk and disrepect for authority. You could move anyone you want into the inner city tommorrow. Until you turn off the sewer's spigot, you're wasting your time. And sorry, I don't have a solution, except don't buy stock in these companies.

M_David:

The standard Humanae Vitae line ...

I don't personally want kids, so theoretically I'm supposed to stay a eunuch for life. (Too late for that, but I suppose I could undergo one of those "revirginization" ceremonies.)

You (and a lot of similar-thinking people) sound like the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld when speaking to consenting adults in this mode:

"NO SEX FOR YOU!!!!!!!"

Rebeccat,
As you say, it's unrealistic to think that one urban church can change a community. Nor is it realistic to think that the pastor of said church can do it all by himself.

The best model for urban renewal is in the form of para-church organizations, often called Christian Community Development Corporations. The administrators of such, work in tandem with many local churches and businessmen, (as there is much talent to be gleaned from the pews of differing denominations).

CCDCs are independent from the limits and strangleholds of "churchianity", thus inspiring volunteerism and creative solutions from the body of Christ at large.

Cultural renewal, spiritual formation, evangelization and discipleship are just the beginning of the vision that these mission groups have. Schools, vocational training and real-estate development which includes affordable housing - for those who desire to pull themselves up - complete the picture.

Rebeccat: Anyways, I don't have time to get into it futher, but there. I said it. The black church by and large isn't doing its job.

Rebecca, this is ancillary to your main point, but I'm wondering about something. I was once praising the black church and the commitment of African-Americans to their churches in the presence of a pastor's wife. She told me that appearances are deceiving. She said that black churches by and large are about emotional uplift, not deep, sustained repentance and a commitment to holiness. She said that in many cases, there is no expectation that the congregation will live according to traditional Christian standards of sexual morality. The point of church is supposed to be having an ecstatic emotional experience. (She agreed with me that most white churches are essentially centers for therapy and uplift, too, and little more).

Anyway, I have no way of knowing if this pastor's wife was right or wrong. Can you or anybody shed some light?

M_David:

"Exactly why are 13 year olds engaging in sex and having kids by their personal choice "wrong"? Let's have this discussion with our in-house liberal or libertarian...

Umm, perhaps for the same reasons we don't let 13 year-olds drive cars: Because they're not mature enough to handle it responsibly. I realize this doesn't really satisfy the conservative fetish for some inviolable cosmic standard of right and wrong, but it generally works for most people who don't have their heads up their own asses. I often read your posts and find it hard to believe you could be so willfully obtuse, but here we are again...

M_David: "But personally, I find it "wrong" that most people engage in sex with no intention of procreating, married or unmarried."

Yes, in the good old days (circa 2,500,000 BC), a woman's rear end would swell and turn pink when they went into estrus and were willing to accept partners. But then the radical feminists tricked us into coming down from the trees, and women have deviously evolved concealed ovulation so that they can indulge in un-procreative hijinks at any time. I tell you, since we've been walking upright it has all been downhill...

In any case, how come this blog is so preoccupied with sex? The topics seem to be ChurchSexPolitics. Maybe that triad is the one human universal.

(Or perhaps, the pain and itch of swollen hemorrhoidal tissue.)

Rod, Ewgh. Too much information!

Hey, we can't all be editors. OK, it was pretty rough. Ugly, even. And I wasn't even drinking. Yet.

Larry Parker, You sound like the Soup Nazi

Thanks, pal. Look, I think you missed my point. My disjointed writing didn't help matters, I'm sure.

My point, short version: if you don't want wackos like me inflicting my medieval values on you, then I would hesitate to condemn the 13yo couple who wants to start a family as "wrong". They have biology, 99.9% of human history, logic, and the law all on their side. Saying they are "wrong" is the strongest type of moralizing, the shoving of weird cultural values down their throats with no justification that stands up to scrutiny except "I want it that way."

Summary: anything legal in this country goes. We have no unifying culture. Multiculturalism, remember? It's the liberal way. We bought the farm. Let's not complain about the smell.

Right on. We cannot be salt and light while remaining inside the four walls of the church. This should be required reading for all who consider themselves as Christians.

>>>>
"I thought crunchycon would be a place to see the nice side of conservatism, where people would be talking about good things, things everybody could participate in, stuff they liked and people they liked. I thought maybe they'd talk about, oh, I dunno, lifestyles or something. Children, gardening, art, music and stuff. Instead it's just bung full of the same old meanness and bitterness. Carping and feuding. Picking apart every position to see what's wrong with it. Nuts."

Just an opinion from my former self. I realize that you can't tailor your topics to suit me, me, me. I realize this is election season, and thus a supersizing of acrimony comes with every meal. But I wonder if it might not be posssible to speak more of those positive things just occasionally.
Posted by: sigaliris | January 19, 2008 10:58 PM
>>>>

Sig, I think you are looking for Happy Fun Place (TM) over at J-Walking a few blogs over. Watch out for Donny, though...

>>>
M_David:

"Exactly why are 13 year olds engaging in sex and having kids by their personal choice "wrong"? Let's have this discussion with our in-house liberal or libertarian...

Umm, perhaps for the same reasons we don't let 13 year-olds drive cars: Because they're not mature enough to handle it responsibly. I realize this doesn't really satisfy the conservative fetish for some inviolable cosmic standard of right and wrong, but it generally works for most people who don't have their heads up their own asses. I often read your posts and find it hard to believe you could be so willfully obtuse, but here we are again...
Posted by: jaybird | January 19, 2008 9:28 PM
>>>

Gadzooks! Is this a Utilitarian I see before me?

My Dear Sir! If an argument does not derive from Ontological First Principles or Natural Law it has no place here! We do not deign to consider Pragmatic solutions and we sneer at the merely "Good Enough".

Good Day Sir! I said Good Day!

John E.--there's a Happy Fun Place? With conservatives in it?? Naaah . . . I can't be fooled that easily. ; )

M_David is mistaken in stating that those who would impregnate 13 year old girls have biology on their side, I think. A WHO site posts an article from the Easern Mediterranean Health Journal:

http://www.emro.who.int/publications/emhj/0601/06.htm

Quotes: marriage before sixteen years resulted in "twice the risk of spontaneous abortion, four times the risk of combined fetal death and infant mortality, and twice the risk of losing pregnancies any time during their childbearing years. They remained at high risk of poor pregnancy outcome throughout their reproductive lives. Despite tradition, marriage should be discouraged before 16 years. . . . The average age of menarche worldwide is approximately 13.0 years. Girls require about 2-3 years to achieve physical and biological maturity afer the onset of menstruation. Thus girls who marry and conceive before their sixteenth birthdays are not yet fully prepared for the demands of the childbearing period."

You can say that again. I'm sure anyone who actually cared to could find plenty of other non-transcendental evidence that it isn't a good idea for girls to get pregnant at 13. I wouldn't "condemn" a thirteen year old couple as wrong. But I would certainly remonstrate with the adults in their lives who signed off on this lunatic scheme.

In any case, the problem isn't that thirteen year old girls want to marry thirteen year old boys. The problem is that older boys and men--often in their twenties--see thirteen year old girls as easy prey. The girls don't have standing to refuse them, nor to demand that they use contraceptives. Nor do they have a vision of a more hopeful future for themselves that would inspire them to hold out for something better.

Wrong. So much of the anarchy and misery and generational poverty of the ghetto have to do with the refusal of people to regulate their own sexuality. You cannot have a society in which so many young women are having babies out of wedlock, and so few men are taking responsibility for their own children, and expect order to exist. You just can't.

"Wrong. So much of the anarchy and misery and generational poverty of the ghetto have to do with the refusal of people to regulate their own sexuality. You cannot have a society in which so many young women are having babies out of wedlock, and so few men are taking responsibility for their own children, and expect order to exist. You just can't."

If the only message these folks hear from white people of faith is "stop having sex," they just aren't going to listen. Have we learned nothing from the culture war???? Sure, our goal should be to encourage sexual responsibility, but if you think the main problem is they have too much sex, you aren't going to make any impact at all.

You are missing the forest because you are paying attention to the sexuality trees. It's like paying attention to a cough while the body is wracked with cancer.

Hmmmmmm,

Wrong. So much of the anarchy and misery and generational poverty of the ghetto have to do with the refusal of people to regulate their own sexuality. You cannot have a society in which so many young women are having babies out of wedlock, and so few men are taking responsibility for their own children, and expect order to exist. You just can't. Posted by: Rod Dreher

Rod I'd like you to look at the world from the ground. It's a different view than what you get on the back of your pony Patron. I understand it's cleaner air up there and your boots don't get as dirty. But the problems you're discussing are best appreciated at ground level. Everyone has a pony they like to ride of the patronizing breed so don't take it personal.

What your describing is walking into a house and seeing the chaos and waste. You're blaming the mess on their obvious laziness. What's even more obvious from ground level is it's not about laziness at all. It's about self destructive behavior because there's no value of self.

If poverty was the source of this self destructive attitude then we could assume that money could fix it. But we can go to the homes of our coworkers and friends and see the same symptoms and they're not poor. In fact, we can go to the homes of most of the wealthy and the only reason they're not exhibiting the same symptoms of chaos and waste is because they have people cleaning up after them.

The problem is all about the perception of individual worth. Those who appreciate their own value as individuals tend to not engage in self destructive behaviors.

At one time culture was able to give individuals a perspective of their position in the world and a concept of their own value. I view culture as community which may or may not include religion.

The problem with successful culture norms is they were the result of many generations of knowledge and wisdom. Their advantage was they were time proven. Their disadvantage is they're slow to adapt to new conditions and knowledge. Everywhere around us we see culture collapse and they're all crashing for the same reasons. They are unable to process the new information and accomodate it.

When I see your (Rod) constant referencing of old culture I'm reminded of the mother who doesn't get her child's attention at first call when the child is close by. She calls louder. When that doesn't work she raises her voice again. Finally in frustration she starts screaming.

What she's done is like the carpenter working on his car. When he finds resistance he reaches for a hammer. When smacking the problem with the hammer doesn't work. He hits harder.

Rod culture as you know it is incompetent in today's world. It's exactly like the carpenter working on his car. In todays world we need different expertise and specialized tools to work on cars. It's the same thing with presenting individual worth in a manner that can be appreciated to those around us.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Religion is alot like the hammer in the hand of the carpenter working on his car. It has it's place and in it's place it's a very good thing. Placing nails in boards isn't best done using a glass vase.

Religion does work. A case in point is Christ's message about loving your neighbor as you love yourself. You never realize the value of an "s" until you see how much power is lost with adding one to as. The difference between as without the additional "s" and as with the additional "s" is truly Christlike.

Look at what could happen if parents followed Christ's advice and loved their children as they loved themselves. The parents would listen more. We all want to be heard. We especially want to be heard by those we love.

The kids would get more attention from their parents. Not things, attention, there's a difference. And how about those toys? How many of those toys are purchased every year for the pleasure of the parents and if the kids enjoy them it's incidental? Can you imagine conversations around the supper table if the parents treated their children like they themselves want to be treated?

Loving our children as ourself means we not only give what we'd like them to have but we stop and consider if they're better off having it or not. The biggest mistake I see in this line in loving our kids as we would love ourselves is we don't show them the respect we'd like to have for ourselves. We treat them like they're stupid kids when if fact most of the time they're a lot closer to being small adults.

It's here religion can become an unnecessary distraction. The problem with fairy tales is they show disrespect for the intelligence of the listener if the listener is mature enough to hear the truth. That evidencing of disrespect while incidental from the perspective of the parent can be crippling in the relationship from the perspective of the child. It's a serious insult to be treated like an idiot when you aren't.

The biggest mistake I see in this line in loving our kids as we would love ourselves is we don't show them the respect we'd like to have for ourselves.

Amen to that, harvey. Just in parenthesis, I think one of the biggest things lacking in childraising (in general) these days is not teaching our children how to DO anything. Many people make it into adulthood with heads full of theoretical knowledge, but still craving a sense of mastery over their environment. That's probably why children love computers--it's something they are allowed to use, to master. Vocational training is good not because some people are too stupid to deserve more, but because everyone, no matter how smart they are, still needs a sense of physical mastery within their environment. Teaching them to do for themselves is the most basic, basic form of respect that every child demands. I wish I'd done better at this myself as a parent, but I was struggling with the fact that no one taught me how to do much when I was a kid, either.

To continue with topic of respect and religion, I quote from Alice Miller, whose work should be required reading before anyone even considers being a parent:

In certain cases the blows children receive will prevent them from achieving genuine adulthood and accepting responsibility for their actions. And so they remain emotionally crippled throughout their lives, tormented children unable to recognize evil for what it is, let alone to do anything about it. . . . By persisting on such a course, we are creating the very evil we are trying to beat out of our children. . . .

Would it not make eminent sense to encourage believers to follow the example of Mary and Joseph and regard their children as the children of God (which in a sense they are) rather than treating them as their own personal property? The image of God entertained by children who have received love is a mirror of their very first experiences. Their God will understand, encourage, explain, pass on knowledge and be tolerant of mistakes. He will never punish them for their curiosity, suffocate their creativity, seduce them, give them incomprehensible commands, or strike fear into their hearts. Jesus, who in Joseph had such a father, preached precisely these virtues. . . .

It is high time to relinquish the destructive models and to mistrust the principle of obedience. We have no need of docile children brainwashed by their upbringing to be ideal targets of seduction by terrrorists and lunatic ideologists, ready to fall in with their commands even to the extent of killing others. Children given the respect they deserve from their earliest years will go through life with open eyes and ears, prepared to fight injustice, stupidity and ignorance with arguments and constructive action.

And if there is no God, it is still possible to be such models for each other. And if one has not had such a childhood, it is not too late to put aside the mistakes of the past and grow into such a person. Learning to treat oneself and others as children of God--or unique gifts of the universe--is a far more important and vital task than busily shaming and scolding the children of the poor for the suffering they have no choice but to endure.

Thanks Sig for putting that quote from Miller into the conversation.

I've been against corporal punishment with children since very early adulthood. My reasoning was the real message passed on with corporal punishment is you can get cooperation using physical abuse.

The other day a father was complaining about the difficulty of raising a teenager. After listening to his bemoaining his lot in life I offered a different perspective for him to consider.

When a baby is born the parents get this huge down payment against the emotional burden of raising a child. There are subsequent payments as the baby grows into a child and then an adult.

I'm sure all parents can relate to the joy of a new birth and the acompanying after glow so they understand what I mean when I point out it's a down payment. I'm also confident that they can relate to the feel goods they get when their child has successes that make their hearts swell with pride. They can relate to this being continuing compensation for parenting.

What bothers me is parents seem to forget all the compensation they've acrued every time the going gets tough. I understand and appreciate their confusion because their parents didn't educate them on parenting because they themselves weren't properly trained for parenthood either.

When culture was capable of correcting the mistakes made my ignorant parents society got by, steadily getting behind, but getting by all the same. But since culture is now incapable of providing guidance in an every more rapid rate of transition from childhood to adulthood it's time we stepped back and reconsidered the roles of parents, society, and children.

Dear Rod,

I really appreciate this discussion. Here are a couple of my thoughts..

Comment Quote:
**I appreciate the post, Rod, but how realistic do you think it is to advocate that people move to poor communities and live with them?
I would truly be happy to do what I could to live among poorer people to try and reach out to them and show them Christ's love. But at what expense?**

What are we doing with what God has given us? What choices are we making with our spiritual / material blessings? Why are we so worried about "guarding" our own lives. I think we need to spend more time giving rather than guarding. People would be suprised to learn how safe some of these "marginal" neighborhoods are. A year and a half ago I moved my family into a corner house in a high drug-dealing / prostitution area near New Haven, Connecticut. We are finding creative ways to help prostitutes, drug dealers and single-parent families find hope and a way out of a destructive lifestyle. Of course we are at the beginning of our journey, it has been difficult with a family, but totally worth it.

Honestly, people we meet really respect what we are doing. They care that we care! We have not been in any more danger then we were when we lived in North Dallas. Christians have to encourage other Christians to move and to care with more than their pocketbooks. We have to care with our whole lives. I believe, and have for some time now, that we need a movement of believers that will give their lives for the sake of the poor and forgotten. We have to encourage the development of missionaries and mission families in our local congregations / denominations to GO and love on the marginalized in our urban centers.

Let's give as Mother Teresa gave - with our heart and our lives. Let's not get caught doing nothing because we were so worried about our own safety. What a horrible way to live.

The other day I was waiting for a medical procedure. The only item in the cubicle where I was stuck was a copy of Guideposts magazine. There I read about a man named Steve Bigari who put some Christian principles into action with the employees at the McDonald's franchise he owned. Lecturing them about their moral deficiencies? Not exactly . . . check this out:

http://www.thehighcalling.org/Library/RamblinDan.asp?BlogID=399

And when you get there, click on the link to the New York Times article, "Thinks Big About the Little Guy."

A quote: He created a system to help resolve the problems of the working poor who staffed his restaurants by pulling together or creating an array of services, from arranging day care to organizing transportation to making small emergency loans. The goal, he said, was to keep his employees on the job and focused on customers.

Now he is trying to persuade others to offer this kind of help to their workers, not as an act of kindness or charity but as a way to reduce employee turnover and increase profit — as, he said, it did for him.

m_david:

If I theoretically didn't understand the post I responded to with "No sex for you!", I REALLY didn't understand the second one. I'm lost. (No, really.)

rebeccat:

With all due respect, I think you misunderstood my point.

I'm not talking about letting 12-year-olds have sex willy-nilly. I'm talking about the regulation of **consenting adults** from having sex BECAUSE THEY DO NOT DESIRE TO PROCREATE. All the logic I hear on CC to justify why gays should not be able to marry is just as easily logic to keep me from remarrying. And that, I find totalitarian.

Ironically, it's actually is the opposite problem of that Rod is discussing in the poor neighborhoods of Dallas (and America), if one thinks about it. But it sure sounds like Margaret Atwood's scenario in "The Handmaid's Tale."

The news networks hire women who seem to have all been poured from the same big hair and big boobs mold.

Getting off-topic, but this is why FOX News is so awesome - their shows are all pretty much angry, wrinkly old white men, surrounded by female anchors who look like they just walked out of a porn convention. Once you notice it, it's near-impossible to take anything on that network seriously.

>>>>
There should be another proposition, a la Godwin's law or Manning's corollary, regarding any reference to Atwood's book being an end to intelligent discussion of the topic at hand.
Posted by: Rob G | January 21, 2008 9:01 AM
>>>>

Likewise, another collary for any of Ayn Rand's works, then.

'Your casual pronouncement that our God is (not MAY BE, but IS) a "fairy tale" treats the believers on this blog like idiots, when, in fact, many of us have brought just as much intellectual rigor to our embrace of Christianity as you bring to your rejection of it.'

Amen to that. Funny how atheists of this sort are able to dismiss some pretty great minds as believing in 'fairy tales'!

"Likewise, another collary for any of Ayn Rand's works, then"

Fine with me.

harvey, you've been an interesting read in this conversation with some really good things to show. But at this point all you're doing is demonstrating your complete lack of understanding about the role that religion plays in the life of a believer. Trying to make a point by starting off with a message which screams "I don't know anything about the topic I'm about to talk about" isn't helpful.

Back in college I did prison ministry in a juvi prison outside of Chicago. What we had to offer these kids was a chance not just to change their lives or their behavior, but to be changed into the sort of person they would like to be. Most of these kids didn't want to be out-of-control angry and violent. They had tried doing the right things, but didn't have to tools to accomplish the task. Then they'd fail and either beat themselves up and spiral into shame or decide they didn't care and spiral into further callousness and violence.

What we brought was a message that your screw-ups didn't have to define who you were. You can be a new person and you don't have to go through this struggle alone. You can have the strength of God to help you do what you haven't been able to do on your own. And when you screw up, God's forgiveness is there so you can move forward and try again. A Christian believes that they have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and knowing that they could have something good within them which was better and more powerful than the demons they struggled with mattered to these kids.

You see only characatures of religion and deign to insist that the distorted picture is the same as the real thing. If I had only seen (or only allowed myself to see) carnival sketched characatures of what religion is and what it can do in people's lives, I might be inclined to agree with you. But the more common experience of religion in the lives of many people who never make headlines, never get caught up in sex and money scandles is that they can handle their lives better with religion than without. They are better people with religion than without.

The religious argument against promiscuity is that we're better than that. God wants better for us and can help sustain us as we work to accomplish the best that God has for us. That's not a distraction - that's an affirmative, dignifying message which comes not just with words, but with the power of God behind it. If you don't want it, that's fine. But last time I checked, we weren't living in a world where harvey lacey was the ultimate arbiter of reality.

>>>>
Seriously folks, I'm heading out to get after it, yup, it's cold out there, but while I'm gone maybe one or more of the more rigorous theists can explain how their truth is more truth than common sense when it comes to explaining why people should avoid promiscuity.
Posted by: harvey lacey | January 21, 2008 10:58 AM
>>>>

I'm not a theist, rigorous or otherwise, but I'll put forward the suggestion that the truth put out by the theists have the added feature of claiming that a trancendent Deity punishes bad behaviour and rewards good behavior, while the common sense of atheistic materialism merely states that certain behaviors will have unpleasant consequences later on in your life.

If a person accepts the theists truth claims, it is possible that the fear that the transcendent Deity will immediately mark them down for punishment or, conversely, hope that Deity will mark them down for rewards will cause a more immediate change in behavior than might be found in one who discounts the possibility that natural consequences will generate unpleasantness in a future that might not come about.

I hope that made sense, it was a long sentence...

More on the moving-into-the-inner-city theme: I wrote a book (alas, still unpublished) on how hundreds of people did just that at Houston's Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in the 1960s and 1970s. It was - and still is last I heard - a crummy neighborhood on Houston's east end. Redeemer was hot in the charismatic renewal and community households - and lots of people were moving into these 1920s homes near the church and setting up households to deal with folks who need counseling, were coming off drugs, etc.
What transpired was a real mixed bag. The church became world famous for its cutting edge worship and common purse lifestyle, which freed up tons of mostly young people to work fulltime for the church, as they were being supported by other members of their households who were working in secular jobs. For several years, the church had a huge effect on this poor neighborhood; they transformed a local elementary and changed the character of the entire area.
But there was a high cost. Some of the kids who came in with their families never recovered from the crummy schools they were forced to attend. Several of the women in the neighborhood were raped, mostly by burglars. The church never kept any crime stats, but there was definitely a downside to being part of the neighborhood instead of commuting in from the crime-free western suburbs. Church of the Redeemer helped foster several other groups (ie Church of the Messiah in Detroit) whose members also lived in the inner city. I'd say there was a definite spiritual power the church enjoyed in actually living out the Gospel by being where the poor lived and definitely lives were changed. But it was no walk in the park and eventually most of the members gravitated to homes elsewhere in town, as they figured the cost wasn't worth it.

Ayn Rand vs. Margaret Atwood ... yeah, now THAT would be a helluva cage match!

(And thanks for the buck-up, John E.!)

On the "how to avoid promiscuity" discussion, I would suggest that white middle-class Christians make sure their teachings really work for them before enthusiastically preaching them to the poor. Isn't it possible that it's not the preaching that results in better outcomes for the middle-class young, but rather their more favorable milieu in general?

I was raised with traditional sexual morality of the kind that harvey describes as "fairy tales," and I feel rather sympathetic to his description. I don't think it did me much good; in fact, I think it did me a good deal of harm.

I really wish we could have an accurate and truthful show of hands from all the men who avoided masturbation throughout adolescence because they were told it was a mortal sin for which God would damn them to eternal torment unless they confessed and repented of each and every such act. Is there one such man here? Even one? You could post anonymously to collect your Purity Medal.

If there is such an individual who would be willing to talk about it, I would also wish to hear how the expression of his sexual identity has flourished in his adult life. Did he date? Get married? If so, I assume his marriage began with two virgins who had never touched their own bodies for any purpose other than necessary cleansing, and had never having kissed or caressed the opposite sex in any way. They had never seen a movie or read a book or magazine in which men and women were enjoying the pleasures of the flesh, nor did they ever daydream about such happenings. I would like to know how that went. Was there love, joy, rapture, pleasure and ease for both parties, once they were wed?

I have to admit this sounds like a fairy tale to me. In my world of reality, many people who were brought up to think that this could and should be their experience found instead that they ended up with pervasive feelings of shame and guilt that clung for a lifetime. They were awkward around the opposite sex and deeply uncomfortable with their own feelings. They often ended up doing stupidly self-destructive things because they were too ashamed and fearful to come to terms with their own desires. Often they found difficulty establishing a satisfying sexual relationship within marriage.

Of course, there were lots of people who were raised traditionally who ended up having pretty normal, happy lives. In my experience, they were the ones who cheated. ; ) That is, they took all these teachings with a grain of salt, did what worked for them and discarded what didn't. They were the ones who cheerfully ignored the mandate to confess their masturbation habits to the priest, who kissed and smooched with the opposite sex, but avoided promiscuity and pregnancy, and who came to marriage with enough knowledge about their own body and that of their mate to settle happily into committed sexuality.

Is a teaching that is almost impossible to follow, and that doesn't work very well when it is followed, really the very best teaching to promulgate to people who are already having a lot of problems in this area? Or should we follow harvey's advice and try to be practical?

And MargaretE, good for you - I mean that sincerely. It is wonderful that you have found the indwelling, sanctifying Grace you describe.

Unfortunately, since a Great Awakening does not seem to be looming in the immediate future, the rest of us will have to struggle along with merely pragmatic attempts at solutions.

Posted by: John E. | January 21, 2008 4:39 PM

You never know what might be looming in the immediate future, John E. Your heart seems open to whatever it might be. Till then, pragmatic solutions are good too! Thanks for the sincerity.

MargaretE, thanks for your response, most don't even try to go beyond the name calling when the discussion gets to where this one is at.

The one thing I would like to point out to you about your relationship with your God right now is it isyour relationship. Keep in mind there are others who have just as real a relationship with their God even though their God isn't God in your mind. They experience everything you do just as deeply and their relationship is just as real to them.

Understanding and accepting that is why I use the word "fantasy" when I refer to religiosity. It's an individual experience and is singular for that individual at that point in time. The singularity of the experience is why I don't think it's good for training those not experiencing it at that moment.

The way I see religous training for practical living is it's often like putting the medicine in applesauce. Some people end up believing it's the applesauce that's made them whole.

I'm also one of those people who try to decipher the difference between the spoken and the real message delivered.

Let me give you an example. A father is walking through Walmart with his daughter. He points out a nice dressed woman who is obviously a professional woman by her dress and demeanor. "That could be you if you study hard" he says. "You don't know how proud it would make me of you to see you like that one day."

About that time a seventeen year old in a halter top and torn cut offs struts by with everything, and I mean everything, hanging out. Dad stops talking, spins, and stares.

What is the message that he's just given his daughter? How about, you want to impress daddy look like a tramp?

What is the real message given when Christians attempt to convert nihilist ghetto dwellers from their heathern ways using the "thou shalt nots"? How about, Jesus loves me and if you be good He can love you too?.

There's also the message that Jesus loved me more than He loved you because I was born into a good life and you weren't.

It seems to me we might need something a bit stronger than good ol' common sense to battle ghetto nihilism. MargaretE.

Nah, common sense will do fine thank you.

First thing we have to understand is these ghetto nihilists will accept a well packaged deal. We know this because they've been accepting poorly packaged deals and not complaining too loudly for a long time now.

Second, we need to present the cold hard facts. They don't need applesauce to make the medicine easier to swallow. They're tough.

Third, it starts with us being honest with ourselves before we even try to be honest with them. One of the fallacies we have to leave at the curb is the righteous perspective that sin is good.

Seriously, if you listen to the righteous discuss bad sexual behaviors it sounds delicious. The same is true of alcohol and drug abuse, they make it sound like it's so much fun and not doing is a real sacrifice.

The truth is promiscuity is a poor subsitute for the real thing. Now the righteous think I'm talking about sex, that's how they think. I'm not. I'm talking about real relationships between two people that love and care about each other.

So instead of looking at their sexual misbehaviors something to be envied, keep in mind my thing about real message given, we need to understand that they're settling for table scraps because they've never been introduced to the table at dinner time.

I don't think walking in and talking about salvation or the hazards of promiscuity is the way to get things changing in their lives. I believe the first thing that needs to be introduced is discussion about relationships between people who love each other. Again, think of table scraps and now we're talking about table manners.

The first thing that needs to be discussed in relationships is most of us don't live in Rod's world. We don't have a marriage that's God's work.

So the first thing we need to address is the truth about marriage and relationships. It's not easy. There are two different people with two different bodies that work two different ways. There are two different agendas along with two different histories and two different kinds of perspectives and ultimately two different goals.

This is further complicated by the fact that we're attracted initiatlly by the superficial. And then there's sex. The one thing that can be worked out easier than anything else becomes the deal breaker or maker if you will.

You have to keep in mind some of these kids have never seen a successful marriage, much less a happy one. They have no example of what a dinner table at home looks like much less how people act when they're eating at one.

Yea and amen, harvey. I would add that most people--not just ghetto kids--have very little understanding of how to talk to and communicate with other people who are frustrating them. Most people have little skill at understanding their own feelings, let alone communicating them in a non-threatening manner to someone who seems to be in their way and isn't giving them what they want. You, harvey, seem to be pretty good at this. It's taken me a lifetime (so far) to come close to doing this.

People need to see that it's possible to understand and be understood instead of jumping to the adversary position and starting to fight. They need to see that understanding actually works better than force to get what you need. In or out of the ghetto, there's a lack of knowledge about that. And I'd say this is the most important skill that will help men and women work together in families.

I'm going to recommend this book again, because I think it's one of the most important books ever--possibly more useful than the Bible! Kidding, kidding . . . ; )

Nonviolent Communication, by Marshall Rosenberg

http://www.cnvc.org/

Of course, another possibility for these poor people consists of them heeding the Da'wa and converting to Islam...

Of course, another possibility for these poor people consists of them heeding the Da'wa and converting to Islam... Posted by: Anti Dhimmi

And it would perfectly understandable, striking out is really striking back and all that.......

In the end, Harvey, what does it matter if people got hurt? I mean, you did what you had to do at the time, didn't you? Where was your example, then, of what not to do?

By your defense of nihilism, you've answered your own question from this morning. Where there is a lack of guidance, people need something larger than themselves or their environment on which to make judgement calls. Such is our need for God in this sea of imperfect humanity. Posted by: mm

Applesauce.

If that confused you allow me to help you with it. Earlier I referred to religion being like hiding medicine in applesauce so children will accept it. Sometimes people assume applesauce is what keeps them well.

The biggest problem with your position on God is we need consensus on which god is God for God to be relevant. Unless of course you're suggesting the concept of God is all the God we need. To that I say, "applesauce".

This is a loooong thread and I'm just catching up.

I think the call to be salt and light starts where right we are - whether it's the inner city or suburbia or rural America. It starts right in your own sphere. Today.

A Society's destructive mores can't be changed unless we choose to reject them. Unless when in the act of rejecting them, we can show a better way of being. This reminds me today of so many prophetic words and actions taken by Dr. King. I'm not sure how or why that dream's movement receded. But I like the quote that his yet to be completed Washington DC memorial is based on.

"With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope." http://www.mlkmemorial.org/

Someone said.
"Let's give as Mother Teresa gave - with our heart and our lives. Let's not get caught doing nothing because we were so worried about our own safety. What a horrible way to live"

You're right. It's wrong to allow fear to stop you. But as parents, we ARE first called to serve God and second to keep our kids safe, to teach them well, to show them love in action, etc. And it's this responsibility to our kids that can keep us out of living in the toughest areas. I'm not sure that's so morally wrong. It really has to be a question of answering God's call, more than deciding on my own where I should minister.

M.Teresa also said love is to be found in doing the little things with great love. Very similar to/[the same as?] St. Theresa of Liseaux - the little flower. We can bring about much needed change in small ways right where we are. Always amazed at how much needs to be done right where I am.

But that doesn't really answer Rod's question - except maybe MLK's answer -that from despair CAN come hope. That if the pedagogical lesson doesn't teach, perhaps experience can and will. If we hold up the Truth, if we get the message of the Truth to the people who need to hear it, the H.S. can and will do the work. That's my hope. That prayer and the Holy Spirit must be the start of real and lasting change. It does no good to march right in without that leading of the HS.

MargaretE had it exactly right.
"When you experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirt, your heart is transformed. You want to do good, and to BE good, not to earn God's love and forgiveness, but because you suddenly understand (and what a joyful revelation it is!) that He has freely given it to you" And BTW that free gift of the Holy Spirit is open to absolutely every soul, no exceptions. Every soul, rich, poor. The H.S. remains color blind, age unimpaired, you name it, He'll claim it. The gift requires just one thing . . . humility. Recognition of that Higher Power.

The beginning of Wisdom . . . isn't a great philosophy or psychology text . . . superior insights from an amazing teacher. . . highly developed logical analytical skill . . . emotional intelligence . . . perseverance . . . hard work. . . or even LOVE . . . the Beginning of Wisdom is fear of the Lord. And fear implies respect and awe. Putting aside the Id, Ego, and SuperEgo and asking for God's forgiveness and presence in our lives daily.

'For a soul full of Grace and a heart full of love' MLK again.

Wisemen and Wisewomen still seek Him.

Wisewomen. I like that. Maybe someday I'll get there too.. . . Pax

harvey, I would never say of a secular group working with troubled kids, encouraging them to stay out of trouble, be abstinent, mentoring, etc that they should not be there because they are not presenting a religious message as well. I would actually tell someone who went in with a religious message like "believe this or you're going to hell" and nothing else that they should get the blazes out. All I'm saying is that religious groups who are serving, teaching a supporting have a place as well and shouldn't be required or hectored into abandoning the religious component of their work as a "distraction".

And fwiw, I am fortunate not to have been subjected to the "we're all evil by birth and nature, snivle and beg for mercy upon your wretched soul" message that some forms of Christianity promote, so perhaps our perspectives on the nature of evil and human struggle is different.

I understand and appreciate your position Rebecca. I know there is a part of us that wants to assume that this part of us that seems to be bigger than us is more than us, if that makes sense to you.

That feeling is common to us as human beings. It would be nice if only Christians had this experience. Then we could say it's about Christianity. But we know that isn't so. Some people of every faith share this same experience while believing in different Gods or like me, no god at all.

Lewis believed it was the God in us breaking through. I don't think he thought about it long and hard enough or he would have surely came to the conclusion that is was us in us instead.

The way I look at it is we're all made of the same ingredients. It's the quanities of each ingredient in the combination that makes us unique. Some of us come with more of a spiritual nature than others, more of the spiritual ingredient let's say. With us it's not what we believe that makes us different so much as how much we believe.

In my own life I've noticed I attract two kinds of people. By attract I mean they seem to find me and find something they're searching for in my presence. The most common one is people in pain. I can be in a Walmart and a complete stranger who just lost a loved one or is having problems with a kid or spouse will initiate a conversation and pour out their hearts to me. It's happened so often that my wife and myself aren't surprised anymore when it happens. The other group that finds me are the believers. We do enjoy each other even though most of the time our positions are polar there's a commonality that bonds us close.

I'm at that point in my life where I question less and appreciate more on stuff like this. I think that's because I've searched and the only commonality seems to be us being human beings and that's enough.

Harvey I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing petty about free will. Free will is respectful. The ultimate power to accept or reject the Creator lies in the hands of His creation.

There's nothing petty about asking a man to recognize or at least acknowledge the possiblity that he is finite (has some limits)and not the End all, be all. A student can't learn if he already has all the answers. There's a reason why AA starts its 12 steps with the recognition of a Higher Power than himself. Wisdom starts with a recognition that someone is greater than the self.

That's what I'm talking about.

The gangbanger comment supplants a criminal for God so I'd say that was a huge difference. I'm not here to try to convince you or convert you. Just wondering though, Why does the idea of humility offend? Is it because it's the opposite of arrogant self-reliance of our culture? If you're seeking the Truth, humility is a prerequisite.
How do you KNOW for sure there is no God? Why reject Pascal's wager?

What an interesting discussion! Sheilagh and rebeccat, much of what you say sounds a chord in me, because I was raised with some of those ideas, and I see the empowerment in them--IF you were tutored to read the words that way. However, I've spent enough time around people who were not tutored that way to know that the same phrases that bring warm comfort to your hearts can sound stone-cold or actually frightening to many.

I hear you, rebeccat, when you say, I am fortunate not to have been subjected to the "we're all evil by birth and nature, snivle and beg for mercy upon your wretched soul" message. I was years into adulthood before I understood that there was any other way to read the Christian message. To teach a child that she is hopelessly evil by nature adds a whole layer of difficulty to be overcome before you can even start working with the reality of what you are--human. That's why what harvey is saying resonates with me as well. Why start by adding that burden to the backs of young people already struggling with their human selves? Maybe, to help them find the best in themselves, one should start by looking for the best, rather than indoctrinating them to see the worst.

About fear: Rob G. said on another thread that the Old Testament has to be read in the light of the New. If that's so, then I refer you to John 4:16-18, one of my favorites. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in [her] . . . . There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

In my experience, fear is not at all helpful for learning anything. Fear is useful if you have to strike out, or flee. Even for fighting, fear is not all that useful. Martial artists learn to put it aside. Decisions made out of fear are not good ones. Fear is a trigger left over from our animal days. As humans, we now have better options. If you approach any learning experience with fear in your heart, you won't get the maximum benefit.

I tried to learn to drive a stick shift with my mother, who was afraid of her car. I gave up because she flinched any time my foot went near the clutch. Years later, a friend taught me. "Don't be afraid of it!" he said. He put his foot on top of mine and mashed it. I felt the gears mesh--even though they clashed horribly--and said to myself, "By golly, I CAN do this." When you're riding horseback, they say "Throw your heart over the fence, and the horse will follow." If you sit there saying to yourself, "This is a big animal, and I'd better be afraid of him," you're doomed. Kids afraid of math don't learn math. Have you ever heard the horrid scritching of a beginning violinist who plays tentatively for fear of making a mistake? My violin teacher used to quote Martin Luther to me: "Sin boldly!" Wrong notes played with vigor sound better than the right ones played weakly and fearfully.

I guess it's obvious by now that I don't believe fear of anything is the beginning of wisdom. ; )

That's right MargaretE. The quote is from either the Book of Wisdom or Proverbs. And the interpretation I was given was Fear as Deep Respect or Awe. But Humility is also part of the equation.

If you believe in the Biblical Miracles I suppose seeing a prophet taken up in a whirlwind, or Jesus walking on water or raising Lazarus from the dead, or God appearing to Moses to give the 10 Commandments, all of those acts would inspire this type of 'Fear' of the Lord. Ie. 'I think I'm going to do what he's telling me to because He is God.'

But still blessed are all those who don't see yet still believe. And only God knows when your time will come to hear the Good News and receive it. It really is all about Grace. :)

I like the word "invites", not "demands", myself. We are invited to follow God, to walk His way and grow spiritually, part of which, per Sheilagh, is the acceptance of God's higher power and our imperfection as well as acceptance of God's unconditional love for us, an unmerited gift. The invitation is always there, the hand is always outstretched; it is my job to accept the invitation, accept my imperfection and the imperfection of my fellows, reach out my hand and ask for help, and be willing in turn to extend my hand to others in the same way.

Here's another question, what should one say to a teenager or even a 12 year old who reads the popular "teen" magazines? They are a substantial part of the culture for poor and middle class girls alike. And their message is just as sex-saturated as anything else in the modern world. I could write about it at length, but K. Lopez has already done so here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjRiMTg1MDM5NDlkYTVhNWMyNzBjZmUwMDg1ZTg4MjQ=

(For commentary from Jesus, see Luke 6:27-36. Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. I notice that he didn't say, "Tell those sinners they'd better love you or else, because that's how God demands love from you!") Posted by: sigaliris

This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say we construct a god. Sig and MargaretE talk about the loving Christ. That's the one they've constructed because that's the kind of people they are

They've chosen to ignore the non-loving and petty Christ in Luke 10:

5And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.

6And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.

7And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

8And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:

9And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

10But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,

11Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

12But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

13Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

14But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.

15And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

Of course mean spirited Christians wallow in this part of Luke and ignore the scriptures also in Luke that Sig quoted. Those scriptures didn't fit the god they've constructed.

Sigaliris, while it is true that drug laws were different 100 years ago, culture was very different 100 years ago as well. Many of the social ills that are tolerated, even encouraged, by our culture simply would not have been acceptable to the vast majority of people in 1907, and one way or another disapproval would have been clear. That time is a different country.

So I do not see that legalization of drugs would improve things at all, in communities where there are no intact families, where male humans see no reason to take any responsibility for their children, where government serves as a surrogate father in any case. Many of the social ills that result from broken or worse yet nonexisting families were visible long before the war on drugs got started, although pointing out the facts got one in a lot of trouble back in the 1960's.

You know, if there were a disease that had the same effects on children that single-parent families have, there'd be a huge campaign to vaccinate against it.
This is not intended as an attack on single parent families, there are some in my church that many of us are helping in different ways, but rather to point out the obvious fact that children from such families are at greater risk for all sorts of bad things in their lives, and require extra help. So why do we tolerate the promotion of this? Why don't we promote "vaccination" against it?

I agree with you on the issues of teaching children about "stuff", but you miss the point: wouldn't it be a bit easier to raise girls to adulthood if various media companies weren't making quite a lot of money by pushing 10-year-olds to behave in a manner completely inappropriate to their age? Wouldn't it be helpful if magazines like "17" did not take it for granted that sex between unmarried teenagers as young as 13 is "normal" and "natural"?

The God detour I am referring to has more to do with theological details. I will point out in passing that so far as I can tell, we've been trying Harvey Lacey's approach for the last 40 years; it is, in fact, a part of how we got into the current situation. Thus it is not at all clear that more of the same will be useful or beneficial.

You know, if there were a disease that had the same effects on children that single-parent families have, there'd be a huge campaign to vaccinate against it.
This is not intended as an attack on single parent families, there are some in my church that many of us are helping in different ways, but rather to point out the obvious fact that children from such families are at greater risk for all sorts of bad things in their lives, and require extra help. So why do we tolerate the promotion of this? Why don't we promote "vaccination" against it? anti dhimmi

Anti, if your ideas worked we wouldn't have the problems we have today. Keep in mind your ideas were tried and have failed more miserably every generation since this great nation was founded.

Heck, we can look at the conflicts inside Islamic countrys and see the same failure of faith based legislation of behavior.

The reason faith oriented marriages fail is because of the fantasy of divine design. We can look at Islam where I don't know them about them believing that Allah gives us our perfect partner like Christians like to believe. But I do know that Islam teaches that Allah designed man to be in charge and the woman is to obey him, almost southern baptisty in it's approach.

The God detour I am referring to has more to do with theological details. I will point out in passing that so far as I can tell, we've been trying Harvey Lacey's approach for the last 40 years; it is, in fact, a part of how we got into the current situation. Thus it is not at all clear that more of the same will be useful or beneficial.
Posted by: Anti Dhimmi

Wrong. What we've seen is succeeding generations more disillusioned with the concept of traditional marriage based upon faith. My parents accepted that their parents marriage was for all practical purposes a failure. I in turn looked at their marriage and wanted more for myself than what they'd had. My children I'm sure have seen the mistakes we've made and hope to not repeat them.

The mistake is not in abandoning faith based marriage. The mistake has been in not abandoning faith based marriage.

Believing we're a story in God's mind removes some aspects of personal responsibility because it's God's story. Another thing that at first blush sounds contradictory to my premise of personal responsibility is removing God from the dicussion that is our lives removes fantasy power and forces us to see reality.

That's because believing in God enables us to live in the fantasy that little us can literally move mountains, think of the governor down south having the day of prayer for rain or the folks that believe having a faithfull in the White House means better government.

Heck think country music with me for a minute. Imagine a life lived like we're dying, and this is all there is.

Posted by: harvey lacey | January 23, 2008 8:03 AM

Harvey, when are you gonna get it? You keep telling us what it's like to believe in God... how it affects us (removes personal responsibility, enables us to live in a fantasy, etc...etc..) But the bottom line is, you really don't know what it's like to believe in God, because you DON'T. If you did, you might be surprised to find that it's not at all as you imagine it. I won't elaborate, because, again, it's impossible to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it. Even someone very, very smart, like you :)

"Actually the turning point for me in going from being a Christian to being an atheist was finding it impossible to rationalize all my blessings versus others not being so fortunate being divine design. If it was divine design then the divine was a cold hearted sorry sob and I wanted to have nothing to with him/her.
Posted by: harvey lacey | January 23, 2008 8:45 PM

Posted by: harvey lacey | January 23, 2008 8:45 PM"

I get that, Harvey. That's why I was an atheist for 20 years. All I can say is that we live in a fallen world. For now. What you see here is not all there is. That's what I believe, anyway. Of course, neither of us can prove the other wrong. I wish you well, my friend. (I hope you don't mind my using the term "friend." Sometimes, I feel closer to the people on this site than I do to my real friends. Need to get out more, I guess!)

That's why I was an atheist for 20 years. All I can say is that we live in a fallen world. For now. What you see here is not all there is. That's what I believe, anyway. Of course, neither of us can prove the other wrong. I wish you well, my friend. (I hope you don't mind my using the term "friend." Sometimes, I feel closer to the people on this site than I do to my real friends. Need to get out more, I guess!)
Posted by: MargaretE

A couple of thoughts for you Margaret. The first is the human body is an amazing thing. A couple of weeks ago at the end of very physical day I fell and sprained if not broke the middle finger of my left hand. We're not sure because being a man amongst men I don't go to the doctor unless it's obviously serious. I found out the one thing that seemed to be affected least by the injury was my ability to operate a keyboard.

Yesterday morning in an instant of inattention I sprained if not broke my right hand and wrist. It's swollen up pretty good and extremely tender to the touch. It was very frustrating for me working yesterday because just about everything I do involves physical strength in some way. We got about eighty percent done of what I wanted to accomplish for the day. It was a good day but a tough night. And I can still operate the keyboard with a minimal amount of irritation.

Some of my best friends on the internet are Christians. In fact I was taught by a devout Catholic common online courtesy some years ago in our discussions about faith online. We became close enough that when he visited north Texas he told his wife he had to find me. That was easy, I'm in the book in a couple of places. The face to face with an evening dinner with us and our spouses was one of the high points of my life.

Every now and then you'll see me engaging a poster named BillH. He's a local attorney who does a lot of pro bono work for people in this country seeking asylum. He's a Christian and we have great conversations. We've even talked on the phone and are considering a blog with him and me as the lead contributors, voices of reason if a world without any it seems.

I heard an interview with Rabbi Brad Hirschfield by Krys Boyd here on our local NPR station. He points out that when you're convinced that you have the only answer then you're a fanatic.

That made me look at myself pretty closely. Then I looked at my friends and decided I must be okay because they're okay. They accept my answer as mine and I can live with theirs being theirs.

That's how I deal with self doubt btw. When I find myself in that black place where I doubt myself I look around at my friends. Invariably I find myself appreciating myself because my friends are great people and they wouldn't care about me if I wasn't at least okay.

I wrote:
"You know, if there were a disease that had the same effects on children that single-parent families have, there'd be a huge campaign to vaccinate against it."

Marian Neudel:
Geez am I tired of hearing about the evils of single-parent families.

I'm sorry that you are tired of hearing facts. But no matter how much you dislike them, facts do not go away. Children of broken homes, as they used to be called, are more at risk for all sorts of bat things, from an increased probability of using drugs (including alcohol) to an increased probability of dropping out of school, to an increased probability of teen sex & preganancy, etc., etc. You can dislike these facts, but 40 years of studies pretty much makes it clear that they do exist.

It is, admittedly, better than the earlier gripes about female-headed families. But it never quite gets to the real point--irresponsible men.

Are you aware that there are single-parent families where the father is the sole parent? The children in that situation are just as much at risk of all of the problems mentioned above as children of a mother-only family. It may be convenient for you to blame all the ills of the world on men, but it isn't true.

But let's face it, we preach to the choir--in this case, single mothers--because they're actually in the pews and available to be preached to, and many of them will actually sit there and listen to the finger-pointing and doom-crying and even feel guilty about not having a husband around.

I don't know what kind of church you go to, but I've never heard any sermon that resembles that in the least in my church.

The people who never show up--the guys who walk away--are by definition not in the audience.

What about the women who walk away, and yes, they do exist, why do you give them a pass?

The facts are clear: if there was a communicable disease that did to children what a single-parent family does, we'd be scrambling to vaccinate for it. Instead, we encourage single parent families in a variety of ways.

The preceding two postings are me, I apologize for forgetting to fill out the Name: field.

I'd like to point out that during the Clinton administration, one of his staffers famously observed that people could avoid being poor in the United States by doing three things:

1. Graduate from high school
2. Get married, but only after graduating from high school
3. Do not have children until after getting married.

90+% of people who do these three things are not poor. They may not be rich, they may have some poor years at first, but they are not poor very long.

Ok, I understand that for you a reference to church and sermons is a metaphor. Will bear that in mind in the future.

Yes, the 'women who walk away" does happen. For example, I know a married couple who are raising their grandchildren. They are doing this because the mother of the children dropped them off on the doorstep of her mother and stepfather's house and announced she was splitting for the West Coast. Perhaps she's going to "find herself", I don't know. But I do know that her mother and stepfather didn't bring the legal system into it, they just find themselves raising a preschooler and a firstgrader at a time in life when many others are contemplating retirement, because a woman decided she didn't want to shoulder her duty any more. So someone else gets to do it.

That's part of the crisis, although I do not think that you will understand why or what I'm talking about.

Again, if there was a disease that did to children what single-parent families do, we'd be vaccinating against it. Instead, we encourage it from the "pulpit" of the mass media.