Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The foundational family
A recent analysis of national data reveals that children who live with both biological parents or adoptive parents and attend religious services regularly are more likely to fare better when compared to children not living with both parents and not attending religious services regularly. The study, which was co-released by the Family Research Council (FRC), indicated that children from intact, religious families are less likely to exhibit problems at school or at home.
“An intact two-parent family and regular church attendance are each associated with fewer problem behaviors, more positive social development, and fewer parental concerns about the child’s learning and achievement,” [wrote study authors Nicholas Zill and Philip Fletcher]. “Taken together, the two home-environment factors have an additive relationship with child well-being. That is, children who live in an intact family and attend religious services regularly generally come out best on child development measures, while children who do neither come out worst. Children with one factor in their favor, but not the other, fall in between ….”
Pat Fagan, director of the FRC’s Center for Family and Religion, hopes the study will impact social policy: “Policy makers should strongly consider whether their policy proposals give support to such a family structure. Children are not the only beneficiaries but also their parents, families, communities, and all of society.”
You can read more of the report here.
back to top29 Comments to “The foundational family”
This story should be filed in the “Firm Grasp on the Obvious” folder.
That having been said I hope it gets mucho publicidad in the MSM but I dont think I’ll hold my breath waiting for the bold-type 3 inch headlines.
Report comment to moderator
What Sawgunner said.
Report comment to moderator
This report belongs with some others: not enough sleep is detrimental, too much video games/tv can lead to lack of exercise and health problems, the hidden flickering of video screens can influence brain activity, reading to children improves their ability to succeed in school, reading improves vocabulary, etc.
Report comment to moderator
I believe ‘down deep’ in everyone’s heart they know children will flourish with a sound family (mother and father living together) home life -
Divorce often times is a selfish choice, brought about by one or both individuals who desire their freedom – believing falsely that their children will be happier if they were apart, since they bicker and fight – much of what I’ve witnessed is nothing more than immature behavior, which prompts parents to divorce, they want their so called ‘freedom’ which leaves the child/children isolated, whether the parents want to admit it or not.
The American family has fallen apart radically since the 60’s with a false sense of ME, ME, ME – it appears it has now leveled off to some degree – many parents cannot afford divorce, however the past damage is evident in what we see today regarding the immorality of those who were subject to bad behavior evidenced by their parents. They have children of their own, whom they haven’t cared for. Some of my friends are ‘victim’s’ of these divorces, they have suffered, their parenting skills are void of thoughtfulness towards their own children as they had no real role models –
As for attending church – that would depend largely on what type of church their parents took them to. Churches who have a lose idea of the Gospel, or twist it to embrace sin, with a very liberal bent, are no different than a social club, but WORSE – they instill a form of churchenish, which further leaves the child without a sound foundation in Christ Jesus.
Report comment to moderator
Post 4, last paragraph should read:
“Churches who have a loose idea of the Gospel”
Report comment to moderator
“Churches who have a lose idea of the Gospel, or twist it to embrace sin, with a very liberal bent, are no different than a social club, but WORSE – they instill a form of churchenish, which further leaves the child without a sound foundation in Christ Jesus.”
Like the Reverend Phelps Church? Like the Mormons? Like the FLDS? Like God’s Army?
Nice try, Vicky, dear. They’re all conservative churches.
Report comment to moderator
YES ON PROP 911!
Outlaw Heterosexual Divorce!
Report comment to moderator
A recent analysis of national data reveals that children who live with both biological parents or adoptive parents and attend religious services regularly are more likely to fare better when compared to children not living with both parents and not attending religious services regularly.
They just figured that out?! I could have told them and spared them the expense.
Good post, Victoria.
Report comment to moderator
Matt
I agree – the expense could have been spared.
Thank you for your kind words.
Report comment to moderator
More questionable statistics. Consider that adults who are petty, irrational, unwilling to work hard at something, and primarily selfish, not to mention poor, are going to be over-represented among the population of divorced parents. Do you think maybe these character traits, and not divorce itself, contribute significantly to the poor performance of these individuals’ children? Ya think?
Report comment to moderator
Nice try, Vicky, dear. They’re all conservative churches.
They might all be “conservative” in some sense, but it isn’t the gospel of Jesus Christ that they’re conserving.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, those might play into it indeed–but why assume divorce doesn’t? Divorce includes a parent voluntarily leaving (seeming to reject the child) and the loss of a parent. It usually includes a lot of other evils as well.
Report comment to moderator
#1 This story should be filed in the “Firm Grasp on the Obvious” folder. That having been said I hope it gets mucho publicidad in the MSM but I dont think I’ll hold my breath waiting for the bold-type 3 inch headlines.
I wonder if this story will have the same earth shattering impact as when psychological studies showed that (gasp!) men and women are different blowing away decades of androgynous nonsense used to support the feminist agenda.
I’m not holding my breath either …
Report comment to moderator
Regarding the comments about the study showing the obvious and the expense of doing the study being unnecessary -
There are things that seem perfectly “obvious” but turn out to be mistaken. Sometimes it’s because people base opinions on their own experience or what they’ve heard or read about, but that is not broadly representative. Other times it’s because it’s hard to distinguish between correlation and cause (if I know people who do “A” also do “B” I still don’t know whether A causes B or B causes A or both are caused by “C”).
Doing a study (and it is important that the study be conducted according to good standards in sample selection and data collection and analysis) shows whether there is a sound basis for the “obvious” opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Xion – 13
YOU WRITE: “…..the feminist agenda.”
That was and is an agenda from the pit, that should be evident in what we see today. Men and women are confused, or at least the pretend to be in their roles, what a shame -
Report comment to moderator
they are comparing two variables at the same time.
Report comment to moderator
Paulin’es comments in post 14 and HRW’s comments in post 16 are critical.
Without the data, making the statement is just a belief. And you don’t have the data unless the study is run. Or more correctly run many times to show repeatability of the behavior being examined.
And HRW is also right: as written, it appears that they made a two vaiable change in the study: both parents and church. It is not clear how one teases out of the data then which is the primary contributing variable.
This is why in design of experiments typically single variable changes over the experimental regime are performed so that the effect of each variable can be analyzed separately (this is actually a very interesting and complex area of study in and of itself).
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl #12:
The simple presence of divorce probably has ~some~ negative effect, but my suspicion is that it’s much less significant than “what type of parent(s) raise a child”. For instance, consider the situation where there is one “good” parent (however you would define “good parent”) whose spouse leaves him/her for another person. That single parent then raises their child. Now consider the situation where there are two “bad” parents (however you would define “bad parent”) who just happen not to get divorced.
Which of those households is more likely to produce a kid who has problems later on?
Victoria #15:
Radical feminism does go too far. Moderate feminism? You have that to thank for women’s suffrage, equal pay for equal work, the right to own property, the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of gender during hiring, the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of gender when seeking admittance to a federally funded university, and (though you may not agree this one is a good thing) the right to use contraception.
Report comment to moderator
buddyglass post 18,
very nice insights!
Report comment to moderator
How many of these kids are Mormon?
Stinkin’ overachievers.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass
YOU WRITE: “Radical feminism does go too far. Moderate feminism? You have that to thank for women’s suffrage, equal pay for equal work, the right to own property, the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of gender during hiring, the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of gender when seeking admittance to a federally funded university, and (though you may not agree this one is a good thing) the right to use contraception.”
This in no way is what I was referring to.
The “feminist agenda” which I find repulsive is one in which women relieve their anger by lashing out at men – leave their children for others to care for while they drive their respective ‘bus’ career’s –
Children need their mothers care and love, they don’t thrive nearly as well when they are given over to nanny’s, hauled off to babysitters and day care. There are times when a mother has to work, either because she has been left by her husband, or finances have become so tight there is no other option – however, more often then not, when a married mother decides to go back to her job or career it is because she yearns for more ‘things’- in this case the children aren’t the priority –
I was one of those here on the blog who supported Sarah Palin – I was WRONG, its just that simple – she was putting her ambition ahead of her family – I’m sorry for slipping into my career mode, in fact I’m ashamed of it, because I KNOW BETTER.
One has only to look at the children in this country, and their parents who were born in the 50’s and 60’s to see how ME oriented our society has become – kids look for alternative ways in which to soften the pain in their lives, be that drugs, sex, gangs, etc. When there is a hole in a childs life, and there is no parent who will take the time to comfort that child, they will find a substitute and that more than likely won’t be the answer, it WILL produce more pain.
Report comment to moderator
I mean, what did we expect that a study by the FRC would conclude? Hell would freeze over before the FRC would come out with anything that concluded that non-conservative Christian families were anything but a hell-hole and conservative Christian families were anything but “heaven on earth”.
This is like the cigarette companies doing a report on smoking or vegetarians doing a report on eating meat. It’s a foregone conclusion on what their so-called “report” is going to find.
Given the FRC’s extremist religious and political agenda, we already knew what they were going to conclude/say.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
“This in no way is what I was referring to.”
I know. You were taking the word “feminism” and interpreting it to mean the most extreme version of that word, thus making it easy to paint in an entirely negative light.
The vast, vast majority of people I know who consider themselves “feminists” do not support “lashing out at men” and have views that are pretty mainstream. Many do, however, support the use of non-parental care givers as a means of enabling both parents to work outside the home. While I agree that the care of a birth parent is preferable, it’s not the end of the world if a kid is looked after by a non-parent during work hours.
“more often then not, when a married mother decides to go back to her job or career it is because she yearns for more ‘things’- in this case the children aren’t the priority”
Agree and disagree.
I’ll agree that the primary motivation for going back to work is usually financial. Though, to an extent, some working women (as with men) derive some sense of self-worth from their careers that would still exist even if the money wasn’t there.
That said, of the mothers I know who work outside the home, most would quit in an instant if they thought it was detrimental to their child. So the child is still the top priority.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – 23
YOU Write: “I’ll agree that the primary motivation for going back to work is usually financial. Though, to an extent, some working women (as with men) derive some sense of self-worth from their careers that would still exist even if the money wasn’t there.”
That is a point of which I respond; “self-worth” ? and who’s self worth are we talking about, obviously the woman – she isn’t thinking of the “self worth” of her child/children, which should trump hers. If money is not the object, but “self-worth” on the mothers part, that leaves a most selfish definition of whats worth her time and what isn’t.
YOU WRITE: “That said, of the mothers I know who work outside the home, most would quit in an instant if they thought it was detrimental to their child. So the child is still the top priority.”
“They thought” – that’s the problem, they don’t think about the future – wait until that child/children get older, they have already begun to fill the “holes” left by the emptiness they suffer – kids don’t listen when they have found an outlet, such as drugs, sex, gangs and other teens who they feel are their ‘best friends’ – in their mind they are the ones who REALLY CARE, not the parents who have put their interests as #1 –
There are a lot of hurting kids, they come in all age groups, and most of them come from broken homes, parents who have an agenda other than the children. It’s too late when the teen turns his back and walks out the door, and comes back only when they feel like it.
When the bottom falls out, and its obvious there are serious problems, the parents wail “we gave them everything, what went wrong” – “how could he/she do this to us” – “its drugs, that’s the whole problem” –
Rarely is it “I have been a selfish parent, what on earth could I have been thinking, all the things I have purchased, own enjoy mean nothing now” – “if only I had stayed home, listened when he/she wanted to talk” -
The parents don’t come to terms with what they have done unless the become really honest about who and what was important from the beginning of the childs life.
As I said much earlier, some mothers have no other choice than to work – they have not choice.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria writes:
“That is a point of which I respond; “self-worth” ? and who’s self worth are we talking about, obviously the woman – she isn’t thinking of the “self worth” of her child/children, which should trump hers.”
If you read the rest of what I wrote, I point out that these women ~are~ taking into account the “worth” of their children. They don’t view it as harmful for the kids to be taken care of by someone else for a while. So your characterization of these women as people who “care more about their career than their kids” isn’t accurate in the general case.
““They thought” – that’s the problem, they don’t think about the future – wait until that child/children get older, they have already begun to fill the “holes” left by the emptiness they suffer…”
Again, not true in the general case. Most of the parents I know who work outside the home devote a good deal more thought and effort to their kids health, education and general wellbeing than some stay-at-home parents I know. They just disagree you that non-parental care is harmful in the long-term.
I would personally think twice before sending my son to day-care. That said, I would not hesitate to leave him in the care of a trusted friend or my wife’s parents. We do the latter; her parents look after him a good portion of the work week. And by all accounts they (and my son) love it.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – 25
YOU WRITE:
“Again, not true in the general case. Most of the parents I know who work outside the home devote a good deal more thought and effort to their kids health, education and general wellbeing than some stay-at-home parents I know. They just disagree you that non-parental care is harmful in the long-term.”
We will need to agree to disagree – those who work have not the hours in the day to give to their children which dedicated ’stay at home mom’s’ give –
I had a high powered position which was grueling to say the least, in hours and time spent thinking through problems which needed to be solved – keeping that in mind adding the time spent driving, flying, long distance phone calls from Europe at 4AM in the morning, I can gurantee you that there was precious little left over for anything else. Yes, I can hear all the comments about other careers, less involved, etc., but it all comes down to what’s important, kids don’t wait while you solve your business problems, they find another path, and more often than not its not the one you would like.
Perhaps you know women who work in a dept. store not to far from home, or work in an office as an assistant to a corporate head, but they still have not the ENERGY to cope with kids who have three times the ENERGY their parents can muster on any given day. Mothers come home tired, dinner to prepare, homework to oversee, and children who have problems to discuss, often times deferring to their friends ’cause mom is too tired’ that’s obvious, they don’t want to UPSET her with the heartache.
I’ve listened to these kids, they don’t talk about the so called extras they receive, they talk about “mom doesn’t have time” – most likely mom doesn’t even know they have a problem, the kids are more insightful than she is, they can see her pain, but she doesn’t SEE THEIR’S –
My experience is vast, I weep for all the kids who haven’t had a fair amount of attention. Working mothers can’t give it to their kids, there is no argument in their favor UNLESS they are forced to work, that is the only reason they should be working.
Report comment to moderator
“We will need to agree to disagree – those who work have not the hours in the day to give to their children which dedicated ’stay at home mom’s’ give”
I don’t think we necessarily disagree. For instance, I agree with you that working parents don’t have the same amount of time to devote to their children as non-working parents.
You conclude from this that these parents don’t care about their children as much as they should, or else they’d stay home. But that only follows if they agree with you that spending less time with their kids is harmful. If they don’t think it’s harmful, which is what I’m alleging, then you can say they’re misguided and are unknowingly harming their kids, but that’s not the same thing as saying they just don’t care.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – 27
This is a fruitless discussion, you point up and defend parents (mothers) who ‘could’ stay home and care for their families, but instead need to “derive some sense of self-worth” as you posted in #23 – That’s a ME attitude which makes the mother who feels this way, someone who cares MORE about herself and her worth than her child/children –
Have a nice week -
Report comment to moderator
Did you completely ignore what I just wrote?
Working outside the home, regardless of whether it’s for financial gain or because one derives some emotional benefit from working, only indicates a lack of care for one’s children if one understands that it’s harmful to the children.
Imagine a parent in a small tribe in the Amazon who gives his or her child some herbal remedy for an illness that ends up being harmful instead. Would you say that person is being “cruel” to his or her child by causing intentional harm? Of course not. He’s essentially ignorant, or misguided, and is causing unintentional harm.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!