Wilderness wanderings: Emily Whitten on Maurice Sendak and Jean Craighead George 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Another tipping point: Births outside marriage
For the first time in American history, more than half of all births to American women under 30 are occurring outside of marriage.
That’s what Child Trends, analyzing data from the National Center for Health Statistics, found out. The New York Times reported this over the weekend with an apt lead: “It used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal.”
This is more important than a trend, because trends are easy to reverse. This is an ooze, a sociological horror film that could be titled The Blob That Ate America. Ask no more why the lives of the next generation, on average, are likely to be more difficult economically (and in many other ways) than that of the baby boomers.
As Bowling Green State University researcher Susan L. Brown (and many others) have found, children born to married couples, on average, “experience better education, social, cognitive and behavioral outcomes” than others.
Many single moms try hard and are overwhelmed. The Times article ends with a vignette about one of them, Lisa Mercado, who is taking a nursing course and working an all-night job at a gas station, so she rarely sees her 6-year-old: “I want to do things with her, but I end up falling asleep.”
The sins of the fathers affect their children. The Times, explaining why some women don’t get married, noted, “Some unwed mothers cite the failures of their parents’ marriages as reasons to wait. Brittany Kidd was 13 when her father ran off with one of her mother’s friends, plunging her mother into depression and leaving the family financially unstable.
“Our family life was pretty perfect: a nice house, two cars, a dog and a cat,” she told the Times. “That stability just got knocked out like a window; it shattered.” Kidd, 21, added that she wouldn’t think of marrying her son’s father, who she said she loves: “I don’t want to wind up like my mom.”
back to top175 Comments to “Another tipping point: Births outside marriage”
I have had some interesting conversations with young people at my job. I spent some considerable time talking to a young, very pretty black woman, close to 30, who spends a lot of time with her nephews. She is looking for a man who will be faithful and a good father. I have also listened to some of the young black men (non-churchgoers) who want the free sex, but think if the girl gets pregnant, it’s her problem, not his. I’m sure that’s true for whites, too.
Until women force men to be responsible again, this won’t change. Until women understand their worth, this won’t change. It is sad that so many buy the Left’s belief that what’s best for them is free sex, that it’s their “right.”
Report comment to moderator
Despite the hysterical claims of the left-stream media AND the Republican establishment, the problem of which Olasky writes here is exactly why social issues are just what conservatives and Republicans should come together on more clearly to win elections.
Report comment to moderator
And now is the time.
Report comment to moderator
I’m glad NJ Lawyer’s comment has #1 status. Mine is a very distant #2.
Report comment to moderator
For the first time in American history, more than half of all births to American women under 30 are occurring outside of marriage.
—
The Dem Party and the Far Left have done their Job in destroy marriage.
Report comment to moderator
#2 Joel Not really. That’s exactly the wrong strategy because most Americans are not socially conservative, There is nothing politicians can do about any of this. The answer always is to preach the Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Somebody has to say it, Luke15. And if Santorum says it, even if he loses, it would be a good thing. We’re in the political mess we’re in because of the destruction of the family. A lot of people know it and they just need someone who doesn’t cave every time the Left pooh-poohs and laughs at them. Most people are not going to church, but they are planning to vote.
Report comment to moderator
Or, we could just give up.
Report comment to moderator
Liberally politicians (like LBJ) and the cultural left in Hollywood and New York have done much to weaken the institution of marriage in the US. However, Luke15 is correct that the solution to this problem comes from homes, churches and regenerated human hearts.
Report comment to moderator
I guess I’m getting old (44), because the limited conversations I have had with 20-somethings shows me that the selfishness inherent in then does not allow for even a conversation about marriage and the responsibilities therein. I worked with a sweet young lady, whose “Baby Daddy” to their 18 month old child finally did the honorable thing and proposed to her. But the confusion of that family is actually more typical to that generation (factor in the fact that the mother was white, and the father was black) then is the traditional family of the 1950’s.
The church has lost it’s moral authority in society, and with it, biblical truth is nothing more than a fairy tale to 20-somethings. You can’t even have a conversation about the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage, or even the sinfulness of gay sex at all. I went onto a social website where opinions were rendered on the subject of gay marriage, etc. It was nearly unanimous that it is “none of my business” what gay people do. I was nearly banned from that site for posting the biblical truths about homosexual actions. I was condemned as a homophobe and a hate monger for promoting God’s truth.
Sadly, until you address the bankruptcy of the 20-something worldview, there isn’t a whole lot you can talk about with regards to the moral bankruptcy of the “free sex” generation.
Report comment to moderator
Phileo @10 I have had similar experiences on social media sites, but what you did was right and important! Too few in America (including religous leaders) are standing up for truth.
Report comment to moderator
“Many single moms try hard and are overwhelmed.”
Too bad that many dads don’t step up to the plate and take responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
NJL @1: That is interesting that the young men view pregnancy as the girl’s problem. Another casualty of the woman’s right to choose arguement – if women are the ones who decide whether to abort or not, then by extension, the child is only their problem if they keep it.
Phileo @10: Speaking as a 20-something, I can say that our worldview depended a lot on how we were brought up. When we were told that there is no moral compass, and saw demonstration of that in the government policies and societal norms that developed as we grew up, what else were we to conclude. It is indeed true that the sins of the fathers are visited on the children, even when said children want nothing to do with them.
Speaking of which, this problem is also due to the educational demands placed on young people – the get-an-education-job-and-house and then marry line – Puberty is happening at a younger and younger age, and those hormonal instincts are hard to ignore.
Report comment to moderator
Por Favor, find me a politician in our out of office of either party with the stiffened spine to be so “judgmental” as to loudly and uncompromisingly proclaim that in the Good Ol’ USA ea and every child who survives to birth is entitled to have both a MOMMY and a DADDY. They will be committed to ea other and the success of their offspring.
Once you say that you are implying there is such a thing as A family (the ideal). So you alienate divorcees or never-married moms along with homosexual couples who want to get one of those children since they cannot fulfill all that “be fruitful and multiply” stuff in Genesis.
Report comment to moderator
Por Favor, find me a politician in our out of office of either party with the stiffened spine to be so “judgmental” as to loudly and uncompromisingly proclaim that in the Good Ol’ USA ea and every child who survives to birth is entitled to have both a MOMMY and a DADDY. They will be committed to ea other and the success of their offspring.
Once you say that you are implying there is such a thing as A family (the ideal). So you alienate divorcees or never-married moms along with homosexual couples who want to get one of those children since they cannot fulfill all that “be fruitful and multiply” stuff in Genesis.
Report comment to moderator
If we could threaten the sperm donors with actual prison and not wage garnishment, that would cut a lot of this.
I know a man whose wife got a court order requiring him to pay X% of his earnings. As a physician he chose to cut back his work hours to spite her. But we know who gets hurt, no?
Report comment to moderator
Luke, I still don’t respect your comments because of what you said about Clarence Thomas (or the name you called him) a few days ago. It was not mere disacgreement, it was total disrespect and a smear.
Report comment to moderator
#13 Phos, I cannot speak for Canada but in the USA the biggest cheerleaders for legal unregulated abortion? The PLAYBOY Foundation.
Report comment to moderator
Rickyweaver,
I agree with you fully that the solution to this problem comes from homes, churches and regenerated human hearts. But that does not constitute an argument that social issues should be avoided by conservative candidates (which was not your argument but was implied or stated by another).
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark @17 – you have made the same comment about the same poster on several different threads and it is beginning to look like bullying – as a commenter who claims to be a pastor, you are setting a poor example of how to deal with those who disagree with you.
Report comment to moderator
Olasky
Ask no more why the lives of the next generation, on average, are likely to be more difficult economically (and in many other ways) than that of the baby boomers.
Really??? illegitimate births account for a lower lifestyle for the current generation than the baby boomers?? Singular causation is rather simplistic especially in this case where a social fact is used as a cause for an economic fact. Looking at the economic data, and the sequence of events, a better rationale would be the growth of inequality, deregulation, mismanagement of private and public economy, debt service and accumulation, a shift from manufacturing to service and consumption models, etc.
There are problems with illegitimate birth but Olasky’s claim is not one of them.
Report comment to moderator
I think a white conservative politician should go speak at any black church you care to visit. Mainly grannies with grandchildren. The men? None really beyond the pastor and a few other leader types [Deacon, elder?] Grannies take along grandkids until such time as the kids get old enough to work. Perhaps Granny even wants them working on weekends to one day support her in her dotage.
Now don’t go jumping on me with racist accusations. This is a problem one finds in all nations with welfare states
Most of the social pathologies we find in the USA among our so-called “dependency class” is no respecter of skin pigment. The UK, Sweden and all the much longer duration welfare states are beset by the same problem. (Made worse by immigrant dependents in their countries)
It remains a very cogent argument made by conservative black economists (Sowell, Walter Williams) and comedian Bill Cosby that the modern Great Society welfare state’s lasting legacy has been the destruction of marriage as the norm in inner city minority communities.
Of course govt tax policies, enviro reg zealotry and greedy unions conspired to cause basic unskilled manufacturing jobs to move abroad to the maquilladoras across the border. Where the state messed up big time is not preparing youngsters for the effects of that reality. Gummint skrools have a hard enough time if Johnny and Janie show up fed and go home to a mom and daddy. The black church as a moral institution seems too timid to denounce the issue Dr O has outlined above, although the Malcolm X types seem to attack it head on.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark @19 I think we are in agreement. The solutions to our moral collapse must come from a spiritual revival. One role of conservative politicians is to fight against government policies that promote moral collapse.
Report comment to moderator
I actually at one time saw then-Senator OBama as being a married man and good husband role model who would do a “Nixon to China” and give a speech along the lines of Bill Cosby. Cos was harshly condemnatory of “black English” saggy pants, etc etc
Even Cosby, however, is not without blemish if tabloid accusations are true. And defenders of the status quo would eagerly point that out.
Report comment to moderator
#23 (Standing to my feet and applauding!)
Report comment to moderator
This is the big story of my lifetime (I’m 57 years old). Having gone from the point, over 50 years ago in 1960, where only 6% of babies in America were born out of wedlock, to 42% today (and OVER 50% for women 30 and under), I entertain no illusions that the ship can be righted tomorrow, or next year or even in my lifetime. I don’t even know if we can keep the numbers from continuing to rise. In my lifetime, there has NEVER been a reduction in that percentage. Every year, it goes up. Looking at a graph, we would only see a line rising in one diraection–BAD!
Hollywood has always had its way with our collective hearts and minds (especially the young).
Report comment to moderator
HRW @ 21 Mr. Olasky is correct. For all races, getting married and staying married if you have children is the single most important step to avoiding poverty. This has been true for years.
Report comment to moderator
Its interesting to note that in order to claim 50% of all births were outside, Olasky and Child Trends were forced to consider only women under 30. The real stat is 41% of all births were outside of marriage, still high but it doesn’t represent the tipping point and makes Olasky and Child Trend misleading.
Given this stat, it appear those who hold off child bearing until after education is finished and career has started are more likely to be in a stable relationship or even marriage, creating a class dimension to the situation. Perhaps by emphasizing the importance of education and career, child birth outside of marriage can be reversed, this means money needs to be spent on higher education to make a a career goal achievable and alternative to appearing on the Maury show. Furthermore, contraception shouldn’t be subject to the ridiculous dog and pony show we’ve seen in the last two weeks. Finally, a realistic sex education should be funded and expanded emphasizing the “order” …. school, career, marriage and then child.
Report comment to moderator
#24 I had the same hope. Who says a 50 year old can’t be naive?
Report comment to moderator
The left loves social issues because then they can promote the social gospel, the black liberation gospel and the gospel of big government. They use the social issues as a way to scare the poor, the elderly and the minority into voting against their faith and for the Dem Party.
Report comment to moderator
Phos, thanks for your opinion. You may be right in terms of perceptions. But what matters more to me at this point in my life, is standing up for decent people who get viciously slandered and smeared without the slightest warrant. And they do it with impunity all too often. Not on my watch anymore.
So I stand by my comments, Phos (while not entirely disagreeing with your criticism of it).
Report comment to moderator
The failure of a marriage (eventually becoming a one-parent household) is reason not to get married but to be a single parent by choice? (The last paragraph in the column.)
Also relevant in these statistics: Unless these are judged differently than I’ve seen before, they count it as an unwed pregnancy only if the mother is unmarried at the time of the baby’s birth. So one could add a few more percentage points for cases in which the wife is pregnant when the couple marries. Throw in a third or so of pregnancies ending in abortion (nearly all of them unwed mothers), and the percentage is that much higher again.
Report comment to moderator
Marriage has been under attack since the 60’s, what we are seeing is the end result of the endless attack from free sex’s, to you do not need a man to raise your kids, to you can father as many kids as you want and skip out of child support, to same sex marriage.. It has been one endless attacks…
Report comment to moderator
Also, half the births under discussion occur in common-law families — so more realistically the illegitimacy rate is closer to 20% still not great but approaching historical rates. Olasky is better off looking at the decline of marriage than illegitimate birth rate.
Given that the illegitimacy rate is much higher in the Scandinavia why don’t they experience similar problems?
Report comment to moderator
HRW wrote; “…this means money needs to be spent…”
[You can read his note in context at #28].
Sorry, but money is not tha answer to his ‘tipping point’ problem. Only a socialist, it seems to me, would think it is.
In a debate last month, Santorum referred to a study that found a high correlation between three main factors and poverty:
1. Don’t graduate from high school.
2. Don’t get married before having babies.
3. Don’t take a job.
If these three factors do not apply to you, you have a 98% chance of NOT being in poverty. If ANY one of them is true for you, your chances go WAY up.
Report comment to moderator
Phos
Speaking of which, this problem is also due to the educational demands placed on young people – the get-an-education-job-and-house and then marry line – Puberty is happening at a younger and younger age, and those hormonal instincts are hard to ignore.
Well put. And therein lies part of the reasons behind the increase. Marriage has not only declined but has occurred later while puberty has started earlier.
Report comment to moderator
#13 Phos, I cannot speak for Canada but in the USA the biggest cheerleaders for legal unregulated abortion? The PLAYBOY Foundation.
Abortion is completely and subjected to no restraints in Canada and is fully funded.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, the under-thirty relevance has several points. One, it shows what younger adults in the peak of childbearing years are doing; and a more than 50 pecent statistic is a very important one. Two, it shows that illegitimacy is no longer an issue of “teen pregnancy.” No one would be surprised at a statistic that shows that 90% of pregnancies to girls under twenty are to unwed mothers (or whatever the statistic), but increasing the number all the way to age thirty is very telling. It’s highly unlikely this trend will go backward; I daresay the only difference is that ten years from now we’ll be citing that percentage of ALL women of childbearing age.
And sorry, but the constant refrain of “spend more taxpayer money on sex education and birth control and we won’t have this problem” is laughable at this stage. Especially by the time a woman gets to twenty-five or thirty, she knows what causes pregnancy, and she doesn’t care enough to wait till marriage to have sex. That doesn’t mean she is evil incarnate, but it does mean she’s making a moral choice and she isn’t acting ignorantly. Culture has said that fornication is the norm and babies out of wedlock are perfectly OK, and she has accepted that message.
Report comment to moderator
“Olasky is better off looking at the decline of marriage than illegitimate birth rate.”
Huh? Neither should be ignored. I don’t see a big difference between the two either.
“Given that the illegitimacy rate is much higher in the Scandinavia why don’t they experience similar problems?”
They experience plenty of problems, but it does help to not be as addicted to Hollywood. It also helps to have far less illegal immigration. My point is that stronger families and better marriages would be great for both the USA and for Scandinavian countries, but in different great ways.
Report comment to moderator
27 Ricky
For all races, getting married and staying married if you have children is the single most important step to avoiding poverty. This has been true for years.
True but that is not the cause for the general economic decline in America as asserted by Olasky.
Report comment to moderator
I know people, that the woman and the kids are on Government hand outs. If they get married, they would no longer be on that free hand out. So what happens is he lives they but he is not listed as someone living at the house. So they can get the free hand outs..
Report comment to moderator
Big education is doing more to cause this problem, so it is silly to turn to them for a solution.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, it was relevant to make your point on the thread in which you had the disagreement. (I too disagreed with him, though I didn’t say so.) On this thread, it isn’t relevant, and as a younger sister pointed out, it isn’t a good Christian example.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl
teen birth rates are actually on the decline, an indication that sex ed does work. The increase in illegitimate births is in the 20-something group, an indication they have abandoned the idea of marriage.
Incidentally, the teen pregnancy rate is far lower in Europe and Canada, where sex ed and birth control are not an issue, than in the UK and the US. In the book, Spirit Level, the authors mention this along with other social facts as a result of the larger income inequality in the UK and US.
It appears the age cohort “under 30″ presents the highest rate. If one was to include all women of child bearing age it would 41% and if one only cited teen pregnancy, it would be even lower.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, point well taken. I agree with you and Phos in the communication context we share here, and I don’t plan to bring it up again.
Nevertheless, I do not feel bad about defending a good and decent man from scurrilous slander and I hope some will follow that example too. Still, I am grateful for your frank and earnest points made to me in good faith
Report comment to moderator
“teen birth rates are actually on the decline, an indication that sex ed does work.” Cause and effect evidence? We’ve been having comprehensive sex ed for decades; what leads you to believe it’s finally “working” to lower birth rates, and it isn’t some other factor?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Joel Mark.
Report comment to moderator
No political or social issue in America is more important than the one on this thread. Thank you, Mr. Olasky.
Report comment to moderator
HRW @37: Something which I am not proud of. But there are still uneforced restrictions on partial birth abortions according to section 22(1) of the Criminal Code: Every one who causes the death, in the act of birth, of any child that has not become a human being, in such a manner that, if the child were a human being, he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
Are you aware that nurses who work in the Operating Rooms are forced to assist with abortions against their will? As one manager put it, ‘If I allowed an exemption for one nurse, then no one would do it.” Oh yes, between violating its own criminal laws and the consciences of its most caring profession, Canada has nothing to be proud of when it comes to abortion.
Not intending to derail the conversation – just had to get that rant out.
Report comment to moderator
You don’t need this. Someone you know does or will, sadly:
http://www.allprodad.com/top10/parenting/10-ways-to-stay-connected-with-your-kids-after-divorce/
(Totally unrelated to the link above)
I think in the olden days you could put forward an argument about the “necessity” of abortion. The poor woman wanted to avoid the “shame” of illegitimacy. Folks might even refer to the child of an affair out of wedlock as a Bas—-.
So if a woman wanted to evade “societal shame/stigma” the options were trek off for a 9 mos visit at Auntie’s out in the country or go see the abortionist. There still are a few struggling “homes” for unwed mothers but I think Roe pretty much wiped them out as well [if you know of one, share the link for would-be donors]
So now that an illegitimate kid is no stigma and you can easily accumulate all manner of assistance from CareNet, a church or the govt why should anyone abort? As long as the gal doesnt have “a man in the house” I think all various “ministerial helpers” celebrate the young lady’s CHOICE. (Better to carry the child to term than abort, obviously)
But where we are failing is no one is pushing the moms to give the children up to a solid loving family. Whyso? Too judgmental!!
Report comment to moderator
#48 (Leaps up to applaud yet again!) When a family breaks down or fails to form it is not merely a private issue. You and I pay the taxes or run up the debt for the custody court, the social workers, school lunch subsidy program (and its administrators) the disruptive disciplinary conduct in the classroom etc
Report comment to moderator
I know, Sawgunner.
I never did client counseling when I volunteered at pregnancy centers, but one thing that nagged at me is that counselors were supposed to talk with the client, figure out some of her strengths (she seems to have a high level of responsibility, she’s smart, she’s a good student, etc.) and use those strengths to convince her that she would make a good mother.
Now, I’m all in favor of talking people out of killing their children. But can we really determine in 45 minutes that a 15-year-old girl will “make a good mother”? And honestly, is it likely that she will? If she has lots and lots of family support, maybe. But probably she won’t. It’s better for her to care for the child than to kill it, but better yet (in most cases) would be letting someone else rear the child. Or, in a really supportive family environment, encourage marriage with tons of appropriate family support. But encouraging single parenting, even for the motive of saving the child’s life, didn’t sit right with me.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl
The much lower rate in Europe which has a far more comprehensive sex ed programme indicates it can be successful. True this isn’t the only cause for a lower rate the afore mentioned “Spirit Level” makes a good case for lower income inequality. If one were to claim abortion is the cause they would be wrong. Other than Sweden which is equal to the US, the US is far higher in abortions per capitia than any western European nation.
Report comment to moderator
Phos — I don’t think you derailed the conversation. The prolonged US discussion on abortion and contraception has its effect on Canada, namely an attempt to avoid the discussion altogether in order to avoid the culture wars.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl @52, marriage was the solution for pre-marital sex in the Mosaic law. I know of two such situations in distant family members that happened before the 70’s. The one became pregnant, and was sent away to have her child, which was then given up for adoption. They later met, because the adult child wanted to find her birth mother. The other was date raped, and her parents adopted the child as their own – that was a little weird, because I doubt even now, if the child knows that who their mother really is.
HRW @54 – I agree with you, the culture of silence is deafening.
Report comment to moderator
In the fifties, women wanted liberation. It was the men who were liberated from responsibility.
The Aid to Dependent Children bill helped that alone.
Report comment to moderator
Phos, I think marriage is the best scenario if the couple reasonably can marry. But such marriages, based only on pregnancy (the couple had no previous plans to marry) are risky and do need full support of the couple’s families. (I do know many couples whose first child was conceived out of wedlock. And interestingly, I personally know three cases–I know either the parents or the child–in which the first child was conceived out of wedlock and given up for adoption, and then the couple married and had other children.)
In some cases, marriage would be impossible or unwise. (One parent isn’t a believer, they are simply too young–thirteen or fourteen–or one or both are unwilling to marry or to parent.) I do think that option needs to be the first one considered, though, as the best one for the child as long as the parents will stay married.
Report comment to moderator
Couple thoughts:
Re: the relationship of illegitimacy and poverty:
For the nth time, correlation does not imply causation. It is the case that some people will be poor and some people will be wealthy. Certain traits that predispose one to have a lower income, e.g. irresponsibility and inability to delay gratification, also predispose one to illegitimate parenthood. Those traits may also predispose one to being a less effective parent.
Re: the plight of Lisa Mercado:
Lisa’s situation might be improved if there were better institutional support for extracting child support payments from the father(s). The problem here is that you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip. If the father is also poor, then you can only garnish so much of his wages before he’s unable to support himself.
Re: the fact that this has been happening for the past ~20 years:
So, basically, marriage has been falling apart even in the absence of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage.
How many of the illegitimate children do we think were born to unmarried lesbians, for whom marriage isn’t even an option? If it were an option, to what extent would that reduce the number of illegitimate births? (Probably not by much, but I’d be curious to know what the actual number is.)
Report comment to moderator
But why has it been falling apart? Because we have fostered the destruction of traditional marriage and family. There has always been poverty, but until our society adopted the “we’ll pay for your mistakes” attitude, literally, we didn’t see it to the extent we do today.
Some things are true over time, and one of those things is MARRIAGE and a mommy and daddy in a committed relationship.
Of course, if we keep making excuses, that won’t change.
Report comment to moderator
Europe is a horrible example. I hope we do NOT follow in their footsteps on matters related to marriage or birth rates. Their birth rate at all levels is terribly low (married or not). They more often just don’t want children and they are not replacing their population, with the huge exception of the Muslims. Islam may soon be in the majority there and then “Europe” will only be an archaic euphemism.
Report comment to moderator
41 or 42% of ALL babies born in America are born out of wedlock, not even counting the million or more babies every year that are snuffed out and exterminated outright by abortion. Add to this, many children lose a parent to divorce at some point after their entry into this world that is getting increasingly insensitive to the essential rights and needs of children (like having a mom and a dad together in the home).
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, correlation may not imply causation, but it may. The link is definitely strong. And what we can say is that teen or twenty-something moms who give birth to children whose fathers they never marry are quite likely to “doom” those children to all sorts of social ills, including poverty, lower educational achievement, and their own early parenting, but also greatly increasing the likelihood that they will be perpetrators or victims of crime.
In other words, whether or not correlation implies causation, the same young woman choosing not to have sex until she is married will almost definitely provide a greatly enhanced life for her eventual children. The end result is the same, and the “lesson” is the same. Don’t conceive children until you are married, which, taken a step further back, says don’t have sex until you’re married. The most important reason is that premarital sex is wrong. But it also is harmful to families, to society, and to the children born to unmarried women.
Report comment to moderator
Correlation, in the points & cases cited above, certainly does imply causation. It may not PROVE causation but the implication is clear and hard to ignore–unless of couse a partisan bias demands that you ignore it.
There are multiple factors behind poverty (and behind how we define poverty). It is not an exact science. Common sense is essential.
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass @58 You gave be a good laugh. No doubt most of these unmarried mothers are lesbians.
Report comment to moderator
But BuddyGlass does have a point: ‘…It is the case that some people will be poor and some people will be wealthy. Certain traits that predispose one to have a lower income, e.g. irresponsibility and inability to delay gratification, also predispose one to illegitimate parenthood. Those traits may also predispose one to being a less effective parent.’
There are often a group of associated behaviors that complicate the problems. This is why ministries like rescue missions are the most effective in helping the homeless. Just throwing money at them, like government programs often do, don’t really help. They often need someone that really cares to hold them accountable and train them in good behaviors as well as addressing the spiritual problems.
CPC’s concentrating on saving the child (and mother) from abortion is only the first step in the needs of these people. A full fledged ministry tied to adoption services, parental and marital counseling, and a church would be ideal.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner @ 50 “There still are a few struggling “homes” for unwed mothers but I think Roe pretty much wiped them out as well [if you know of one, share the link for would-be donors]”
I’ll take you up on that! Here it is: http://www.refugenevada.com
Report comment to moderator
Fair enough, Fuzzyface. Good points. The point stands, however, that illegitimacy is clearly included among the many crucial factors that contribute to personal economic decline and poverty. Crime also causes poverty (far more than the other way around).
Report comment to moderator
Well, I did my part. Been married 34 yrs. have 2 kids, both married. But will I pass the test as to how good a parent I really was?
The test that shows how good a parent you really are is— How well your Grand Children turn out. (we shall see)
Report comment to moderator
For some of us, this topic is more up close and personal than we ever expected it to be. We can talk all day about the causes and effects of various factors when we are looking at this cultural shift and I have a few that have yet to be mentioned. But one thing I do think we have to accept is that there is no ONE cause for this problem and there is no magic bullet to prevent it. The reality is that even children raised in Christian homes and theologically sound churches, educated in Christian schools, instilled with the very biblical worldview we hold so dear, may make very bad choices in spite of every effort we made to the contrary.
The assumption that many of the girls making this lifestyle choice are coming from broken homes may be correct. But that is not always the case. Our Christian parenting culture likes to make guarantees. If….then……But there are no guarantees. There are forces out there, whether within our children or out there in the world at large, that can override (hopefully just for a time) all that God seems to have done in their life. And we don’t know what God is up to. Like the Prodigal Son, some kids need a true pigpen experience to bring them up close and personal with how wretched life can be outside the will of God. And these are the kids that come back with more passion and gratitude for what the gospel really means: that the gospel is for messy lives.
Report comment to moderator
Gubby Mom, I’m waiting on a few prodigals myself, kids who were (in at least some cases) raised by “good Christian parents.” May God give grace to yours.
Report comment to moderator
@Joel: Their birth rate at all levels is terribly low…
Actually, many European countries’ birth rates aren’t that far below the U.S. rate. (Others are.) Especially if you subtract out Hispanics from the U.S. figures. You know, the ones you want to self-deport.
@Cheryl: correlation may not imply causation, but it may.
@Joel: Correlation, in the points & cases cited above, certainly does imply causation.
What can I say; you guys need to take a statistics class. When two variables are correlated it may be because one is dependent on the other. Or they may be entirely unrelated from a causative standpoint. Or they may both be influenced by some third variable you’re not measuring directly (e.g. irresponsible behavior, in this case).
Divorce (and singleness in general, for that matter) generally makes one “poorer” even when it’s intentional, because one must provide shelter for one’s self on only a single income. This is mitigated by room mates, but many single (post-college-age) people dislike the idea of keeping a room mate. And a room mate only goes part of the way- he or she isn’t likely to bail you out if you experience a sudden expense (e.g. car trouble, medical issue, etc.)
So children raised in single parent households are going to be poorer simply by virtue of lacking the second income. Especially since they’re usually raised by the mother, who will, on average, have a lower earning potential than the (now absent) father.
The question, though, is to the effect of illegitimacy per se. Not the effect of poverty associated with illegitimacy, not the effect of irresponsible behavior that may have led to the illegitimacy, etc. Just the illegitimacy. That is to say if you had a wealthy, responsible couple who were in a healthy, committed relationship (but who were not married) and who intentionally had a child, would that child’s outcome suffer (relative to a child born to comparable married parents) for his having been born outside wedlock? I’m doubtful.
Report comment to moderator
Gubby Mom #69, your post was so astute. Everyone needs to come to a sense of need for Christ (even kids raised in “good Christian homes”). Of course, we are always needy, but don’t always realize it. Sometimes people have to go through dark valleys, but God is always faithful.
Report comment to moderator
“What can I say; you guys need to take a statistics class. When two variables are correlated it may be because one is dependent on the other. Or they may be entirely unrelated from a causative standpoint. Or they may both be influenced by some third variable you’re not measuring directly (e.g. irresponsible behavior, in this case).”
We aren’t doubting that, or at least I’m not and I don’t see that Joel is either. But you seem to be saying, “There may be a correlation, but let’s look at the scientific method of statistics,” and we’re saying, “This isn’t ’science’; this is people, and whatever the hypotheses statistically, what seems evident is that having children when you are not married limits those children’s access to much that is good–including a father.” You’re speaking of statistics abstractly, and we’re talking about flesh and blood reality, in which having babies outside of wedlock really does hurt them.
“So children raised in single parent households are going to be poorer simply by virtue of lacking the second income. Especially since they’re usually raised by the mother, who will, on average, have a lower earning potential than the (now absent) father.”
Um . . . yeah. But this makes our case, not yours! Sure, movie stars can have babies without marriage and their kids won’t suffer financially (though I wouldn’t trade my life for that of those children for anything in the world!), but most single parents are not in that camp. Even those who aren’t in dire poverty are still finding that working a job and caring for children is a hard act, and there are still other factors that make it bad (lack of adult support for the parent, lack of an opposite-sex parent for the child, and often lack of appropriate supervision at times when childcare is too expensive, etc.).
And, yeah, the child of “committed” parents who don’t commit enough to marry are still in more “limbo” than parents who are in a covenantal, no-consideration-of-divorce marriage. My husband and I both grew up in such homes, and it brigns far more security to a child to know his parents are married, and married for keeps, even in comparison to having two parents in the home.
Report comment to moderator
You’re speaking of statistics abstractly, and we’re talking about flesh and blood reality…
No, you’re talking about statistics when you say that correlation implies causation. That’s just not true. Even when there is causation, it’s not implied by correlation. To say “A implies B” means that if A is true then B must be true. So if there is any case where two variables are correlated but there’s no causative relationship then it cannot be true that “correlation implies causation”.
Um . . . yeah. But this makes our case, not yours!
No it doesn’t. If illegitimacy often causes single-parent households, single-parent households have less income, and less income leads to worse outcomes for children, then thing that’s actually causing the worse outcomes is the lack of income, not the illegitimacy per se.
If the only information we have is that illegitimate children have, on average, worse outcomes than non-illegitimate children we cannot conclude from it that illegitimacy was the proximate cause of the degraded outcomes.
Report comment to moderator
I fear for our country and what we have become. We DO need a spiritual revival. People from all faiths need to lock arms and defend each other so that we can be seen as united by those who attack morality. We spend too much time bickering and putting each other down.
I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it published a Proclamation to the World on the Family in 1995. I recommend that you read it and share it. It’s what our country needs right now.
http://www.lds.org/family/proclamation?lang=eng
Report comment to moderator
The conservative sociologist Charles Murray has researched and written extensively on this issue.
The data is there. Conclusions drawn from data are generalizable things. Everyone knows the proverbial exception to the rule.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you PoQui. I recognize a lot of generally applicable common sense in what your church has put forward. Esp the youth page.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass, children who live in poor neighborhoods with lots of gang members with guns are more likely to be killed by a stray bullet.
If “statistics” doesn’t allow us to connect the dots when the dots are really close together, then statistics is out of touch with reality. It has been proven that illegitimacy lowers a family’s financial status (speaking in terms of averages). Now, there are exceptions–families that can “afford” babies out of wedlock–and obviously there is not a one-to-one correlation “If you have children out of wedlock, your family is doomed to poverty.” But it is a strong likelihood that the standard of living will be less and a strong likelihood that the family will be reliant on government aid (which reduces the standard of living for everyone).
“If illegitimacy often causes single-parent households, single-parent households have less income, and less income leads to worse outcomes for children, then thing that’s actually causing the worse outcomes is the lack of income, not the illegitimacy per se.” Not the illegitimacy per se–but so what: I imagine a gunshot wound often leads to death by secondary causes (heart attack, infection, etc.), but we don’t turn around and say that the man who pulled the trigger wasn’t really a murderer since his bullet wasn’t directly the cause of death.
At any rate, poverty itself is one of the “lesser” problems with families formed out of wedlock. I know some healthy families that are very poor by American standards, and they do OK because they are healthy families. Being without a father and the example of marriage, being exposed to the dangers that are often inherent in single-parent homes (e.g., live-in boyfriends are highest on the list of perpetrators of child molestation), being likely to end up in early sexual activity, being likely to live in dangerous neighborhoods, being vulnerable to being exploited and recruited to gangs and drugs, and having “free sex” as the moral standard set . . . all of these are worse for children than financial poverty (which is relative, anyway–most people in other countries would gladly trade places with most of our “poor,” financially speaking).
Report comment to moderator
#31 And I stand by mine, Joel, and for the very same reasons. Selah.
Report comment to moderator
All of these points are mostly well and good but if Santorum was president what could he do about any of it? One other point, the primary and most vicious destroyers of the black family were white ‘Christian’ slave owners. Maybe God is visiting the sins of the fathers…
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – Being without a father and the example of marriage, being exposed to the dangers that are often inherent in single-parent homes (e.g., live-in boyfriends are highest on the list of perpetrators of child molestation)…
You’ve hit on something. In my job I have seen that single mothers often have a series of live-in boyfriends who care nothing for the mother’s child(ren). Such boyfriends are, indeed, frequent abusers. IMHO, Buddyglass is right as to the tree, but you are right as to the forest.
Report comment to moderator
Luke – He could at least refrain from undertaking destructive policies and actions.
Report comment to moderator
Illigitmate children is a huge part of the abortion problem. And the Government actively encourages both… More rebellion against God.
Report comment to moderator
#82 Specifics? Remember, he wouldn’t be the king…
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass at #71 – “[Y]ou guys need to take a statistics class.”
I have taken such a class, Buddyglass, at the graduate level. My opinion is that you are intentionally blowing academic smoke over a point that is simple and clear to common-sense thinkers. It should be easy to understand that clear implications (not the same thing as proof) are reasonable to discern from studies like the ones cited above that sexual chaos and the consequences that often follow does contribute profoundly to higher rates of poverty.
BG wrote; “When two variables are correlated it may be because one is dependent on the other. Or they may be entirely unrelated from a causative standpoint.”
Sure, in the purely theoretical sense. But we are not just talking technical statistical theory here. We are dealing with a way of understanding a specific real world phenomenon with a real life context and all the combined evidence points to the first conclusion–that the variables here have a causal relationship (working both ways too).
And third and fourth variables can enter in as well.
Report comment to moderator
Luke15 wrote; “And I stand by mine, Joel, and for the very same reasons.”
I am not sure of what you are standing by, but no matter. I can only speak for myself. What I stand by is my well-warranted criticism of what you said about Clarance Thomas. However, I said that (and menat it strongly) on another thread and I should not transpot that to a different thread. So I apologize for the latter.
Report comment to moderator
#84 Drew All of America’s social and moral problems come from the bottom up, not down from the top. It was the American women who were having abortions, not Socialist/Marxist ‘liberals’. It’s the American people who are lesbians and homosexuals, not just the hated Dems. It’s the American people’s desire for sexual imagery, not Hollywood’s. It’s the American people’s addiction to drugs, not some evil Mexicans. It’s the American employers’ desire for cheap labor that brings in ‘illegals’ and sends jobs overseas. WE are the problem not Lenin or Stalin or Trotsky or Alinsky, etc. We are who we are because Americans are lost and need to be found. None of these issues are the most important issues today or ever. The only issue is the judgement of a holy God on a country which worships Mammon and loves pleasure and military might more than any in history. And that judgement will begin with US. To call many of our churches ‘lukewarm’ would be to damn them with faint praise.
Report comment to moderator
#8 NJlawyer Preaching the Gospel is giving up?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, Buddy Glass often blows tendentious smoke over issues that are rather obvious. In this case he is in denial regarding the present disastrous overall result of illegitimate children in American society, which is not to deny that some single parents are able to effectively raise children.
Report comment to moderator
#86 Joel Standing by my statements about Judge Thomas and my conclusion that it was a godly Christian woman who was smeared. You can post your displeasure about my comments any where and any time you want. I take your many comments at face value and many, many of them have been helpful to me.
Report comment to moderator
Luke – your description of causal relationships is simplistic at best, or perhaps reductionist. Certainly some of what you say is true, but cultural forces at work in the government and media, at high levels, also affect individuals’ behavior. In this respect, government and media have a teaching role that they are misuisng.
Separately, I don’t know how you presume to know God’s plan for judgment of nations, as when you say he “will begin with US.” In a similar vein, your list of complaints (e.g., use of military force) is reminiscent of the arguments from the Left positing that 9/11 was God’s judgment on America based on his disagreement with our foreign policy. Not only is there no warrant for such a statement (any more than some people on the other end of the spectrum blaming 9/11 on private immoral behavior), but it betrays a blame-America-first-and-always attitude among the Left that I find particularly obnoxious. Besides which, equally good arguments can be mustered that American military force, projected worldwide primiarly through aircraft carrier battle groups, has kept the world as a whole in a relatively peaceful state for several decades as compared to the first half of the 20th Century. It matters little whether you disagree with that or not because it is coming to an end through sheer force of economic reality.
As for your request for specifics in #84, I would respond that refraining from engaging the state, with its monopoly on the use of force, to coerce individuals and organizations to act contrary to their moral beliefs on matters of human reproduction, would be a reasonable start.
Report comment to moderator
#87 – “All of America’s social and moral problems come from the bottom up, not down from the top.”
Huh? That’s obviously incorrect. Replace “all” with “some.” Causal factors have a dymanic relationship and can work both ways.
The left has fought long and hard for enforcing the legality of abortion and promoted that choice repeatedly and advocated for tax-payers to pay for them too, so they bear much of the moral responibility for rising abortion rates. And the woman who gets the abortion and the man who encourages that option are responsible for that choice too.
Those who encourage or cause others to sin are accountable to God (see Matthew 18:6). That implicates both the smut-makers (Hollywood) and the smut-mongers (those who buy it and are addicted to it).
At #87, Luke was falling hard for the either/or logical fallacy, or the “false alternatives” logical fallacy, big time.
Report comment to moderator
Americas social and moral problems stem fundamentally from the Left that from te French Revolution through Obama has undermined family and religious life in favor of utopian state domination .
Report comment to moderator
#93 That is total nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
#91 Buzzy US is the church. And God’s judgement on nations is pretty clear in Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
#92 Joel Certain government policies sure don’t help but they don’t start anything. There have always been enormous numbers of abortions in the U.S. Roe certainly sanctified it. You might want to read the history of abortion in the U.S. The left didn’t start anything. And there have always been homosexuals and lesbians in the U.S. We conservative Christians rightly condemn it and oppose it but not all conservatives do. The left didn’t start it and the U.S. Constitution is silent, which is the main problem. And remember, Reagan was a conservative, Your left-right paradigm is too narrow. And there’s always been pornography. The left didn’t start it. Some of the court decisions have only recognized what the American people have been doing all along.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think #93 is “total” nonsense. I think it’s true to a large extent, but that as always the picture is more complicated. The point being, however, that it is difficult to deny that there is a wholesale assault on the traditional family launched from the political left, and that the assault is not just for the sake of tearing something down, but it is designed to remove an obstacle to building something up — a utopian ideal. At the heart of virtually all totalitarian visions and projects is some utopian ideal. These are demonically-inspired projects and serve as lead-ups to the coming of the Antichrist which will be successful in uniting the world against God’s people, by uniting all world religions and political parties in service of the peace and prosperity that can be brought about by the false messiah. I know God will judge even that, and so I am not worried; but I think we should read the signs of the times correctly, and see the Left’s overall project for what it is.
Report comment to moderator
As for Reagan – see my post on the other thread entitled, “Really?”
Report comment to moderator
#91 Buzzy I didn’t complain about our military. There have been a number of misuses of our military but that says nothing about the brave guys who were serving in the front lines. I honor every one of them.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, it is total nonsense and which thread are you referring to regarding President Reagan?
Report comment to moderator
I was referring post #22 on the article entitled, “Yes, Really.”
As for #97, if you read up on it, you may find that there is a kernel of truth in there…
Report comment to moderator
I mean, “As for #93…” (not 97).
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Buzzy, I read it and responded.
Report comment to moderator
Luke: #93 That is total nonsense
I should suggest that you read Jonah Goldberg’s well researched volume: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
His thesis is that beginning with the French Revolution the Left has made a concerted attempt to replace religion and the family with a utopian state.
Obama just now is involved in an attack against churches who oppose contraceptives and abortifacients along with running up $trillion plus deficits in an attempt to build a social welfare dominated state that essentially undermines the sort of individual and family responsibility that in the past has made America a great nation.
Report comment to moderator
Sails – I believe there is are spiritual powers at work in that regard too, but for a much grander purpose (see post 97).
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, at 97, I quite agree, the evil power that you refer to couldn’t do better than to foist national socialism, communism, hard edged secularism, and radical Islamism on the world that at end times will be defeated by a higher power. It’s hard to come up with a better explanation.
Report comment to moderator
Sails – you may find this book of some interest. It has a pretty interesting chapter on Nazism, and its connection to the occult and the coming of the false messiah, just as one example:
http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Prosperity-Coming-Holocaust-Movement/dp/1928660657/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1329871436&sr=1-1-fkmr1
Report comment to moderator
#104 Sails Jonah Goldberg doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s just taking a hard-right stance because he knows it sells now.
Report comment to moderator
Luke – I’m getting the general impression that if you disagree with someone, that person is either uttering “total nonsense” or they “don’t know what they’re talking about.” It must be nice to have the truth so wrapped up that all other viewpoints are not only wrong, but unreasonable.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, at 108, read the book before coming to such an ignorant conclusion. Goldberg happens to have a fine mind, The book is carefully researched.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve known about Goldberg for a long time and his mother before him. His column runs in the LA Times, which I take. I know his schtick and would not waste one second on his book. His thesis is nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
So Luke admits it: he has not read the book, but concerning the content of the book, he can say with confidence, “Jonah Goldberg doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” What would you think of a movie review that starts, “I haven’t seen the movie, but let me critique it for you”? Not much, I hope.
Report comment to moderator
It’s hard to have a meaningful conversation with someone who says a book you refer to is nonsense, or that the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but yet has no idea what’s actually in the book because he hasn’t read it. A little humility, please.
Report comment to moderator
Give Luke a break, there are a lot of things that I won’t read because I doubt the author has to say is that is worth reading. Off the top of my head I’m thinking of Obama’s book. If you are going to try to convince Luke of anything, he’s telling you to find another source that he might trust.
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t read Obama’s book either. I’ve been an independent since ‘68 and have never voted for a Dem and won’t in the future. I know more about this stuff than Goldberg does. I know what he thinks. That thesis is as old as time and I could take it apart piece by piece. But it’s not worth my time.
Report comment to moderator
And I’m not interested in having a ‘meaningful conversation’ about anything Goldberg writes.
Report comment to moderator
FuzzyFace – there are a lot of things that I won’t read because I doubt the author has to say is that is worth reading.
I also don’t read every book that is written. However, if someone cites a book that I haven’t read, I’m not arrogant enough to say, “He doesn’t know what he’s talking about in that book,” when I haven’t read the book. Instead, I deal with the argument as it has been presented to me, and, if I’m so inclined, I challenge the content that has been presented. I don’t have much respect for rejoinders that are a simple: “that’s nonsense,” or “that person doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” when no attempt is made to explain why it is nonsense, or what it is in the other person’s argument that’s faulty.
Note, too, that post 108 is internally inconsistent. In one breath, Luke suggests, alternately, that: (a) Jonah Goldberg wrote the book in a cynical attempt to sell books, i.e., he knew exactly what he was doing and made all efforts solely to succeed commercially by pandering to the Right, and (b) he “didn’t know what he was talking about,” meaning that his research was sloppy and he made arguments he may have believed to be true but were actually totally false. So…. which is it: is the book a cynical ploy to pander to the Right, or is it sloppy research and writing? Oh, yeah, I guess you don’t know because you haven’t read the book.
So, FuzzyFace I say “feh!” on your “give Luke a break.” Instead, I will continue to use my brain.
Report comment to moderator
And I’m not interested in having a ‘meaningful conversation’ about anything Goldberg writes.
Perhaps that’s because you’ve “known about Goldberg for a long time and his mother before him.” Well that explains everything doesn’t it. What the heck are you talking about!!!!!????? Tell me about him and his mother and what that has to do with anything, please? Enlighten me.
Report comment to moderator
#108 – Actually, I read the book and Jonah Goldberg knows well whereof he speaks. It is well researched, documented and reasoned.
Fuzzyface, it is entirely legit for anyone not to read a book for whatever reason. But to publicly post that the author of said book under discussion does not know what he is talking about without being willing to read at all is another matter.
Report comment to moderator
With over half of all babies in America born to women 30 and under, it may be time for us to shed a tear for a great nation gove with the wind. But as Christians, we still have heaven and there are still lost people who need to be found.
Report comment to moderator
As for America,
* The U.S. military has succumbed to political correctness and rank homosexualism.
* 42% of all babies are born out of wedlock.
* Our President declares June as Perversion PRIDE month every year.
* Half of all Americans do not even pay income tax and they tend to be the takers who demand more and more and more to be handed over to them from those who do pay taxes.
* A Republican candidate falsely accuses the USA of killing a million Iraqis without a shred of evidence and few care.
* The Defense of Marriage Act (legally passed) is arrogantly spurned by our lawless President.
I’m afraid the fat lady is singing, and quite off key.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – Thank you. Finally someone with a little bit of common sense and a functioning brain has chimed in. I was getting lonely.
Report comment to moderator
So, where on earth did I get, “gove with the wind?”
* gone!
Report comment to moderator
“A little” common sense is usually the best I can muster up, Buzzy. Blessings.
Report comment to moderator
* Half of all Americans do not even pay income tax and they tend to be the takers who demand more and more and more to be handed over to them from those who do pay taxes.
————————————————-
I agree. But there is a group in there that doesn’t fit. A group my father just joined. He’s 86 and this is the first yr he has zero taxes due. He is over joyed that non of his money is going to Washington to only go down a rat hole, to never be seen again.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, how on earth did this get on a list of things to be appalled about? “A Republican candidate falsely accuses the USA of killing a million Iraqis without a shred of evidence and few care.”
I know you think that Paul didn’t have enough proof for that assertion, but even assuming it was a complete exaggeration or an error, it doesn’t come anywhere close to belonging on this list! And since the man is privy to a lot more classified information than you are, it’s just possible he’s right. Either way, it’s silly to put it on such a list.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, kudos to you for 126….
Oh, I meant kudos for actually reading through one of that poster’s comments.
Report comment to moderator
The U.S. military has succumbed to political correctness and rank homosexualism.
Just like…oh…every other U.S. peer nation, if you view “allowing homosexuals to serve openly” as “rank homosexualism”. Including the vaunted IDF.
Of course, by that measure the civilian United States succumbed decades ago. It hasn’t been a crime to admit publicly that one is a homosexual for some time. Do you think it should be?
42% of all babies are born out of wedlock.
This article from Brookings makes a pretty convincing case for the causes of the illegitimate birth rate. It’s not welfare; it’s not any moral decay that’s unique to the United States. It’s birth control and abortion, but primarily birth control. Short of criminalizing birth control, I don’t see this genie being put back in the bottle.
Not to mention: the unique stigma that used to be assigned to women who became pregnant out of wedlock (but not to men who engaged in pre-marital sex) was not a good thing. I’m glad it’s gone.
Our President declares June as Perversion PRIDE month every year.
Not a new thing. Clinton did this first in 1999.
Half of all Americans do not even pay income tax…
Guess what: more than half of all Americans pay no capital gains tax. So what? The income tax is not special. Any American with a job who isn’t getting paid under the table pays payroll tax. See this explanation for why the “47% pay no taxes!” argument is severely misleading.
A Republican candidate falsely accuses the USA of killing a million Iraqis without a shred of evidence
It was not without evidence. You can argue the evidence is not credible, but the statistic wasn’t manufactured from whole cloth.
The Defense of Marriage Act (legally passed) is arrogantly spurned by our lawless President.
Incorrect. Obama was explicit about how he would instruct his Justice Dept. to continue to enforce DOMA until such time as it was overturned. What he did do is instruct the Justice Dept. not to defend it in the courts, which is rare but not unheard of. Reagan, among others, did the same thing while he was president.
Report comment to moderator
Ooops. Forgot to close a tag. The Brookings link nuked the other link to the explanation on who pays taxes, which is here.
Report comment to moderator
As a regular reader of Goldberg’s columns and online writing, I can understand why someone with a different viewpoint might make the mistake of thinking they could dismiss his book. His writing style in his columns and more off-the-cuff writing is fairly flippant and unabashedly ideological.
However, unlike Luke, I’ve read the book, and I agree with Joel Mark — it is well-argued and well-researched and full of citations and examples that back up his point. One might expect Jonah Goldberg to write a rather silly, snarky, ideologically driven book that asserts rather than demonstrates his position. The only problem for people like Luke is, this book isn’t it.
He and his mother have made a nice living off of being the in-your-face goofy side of popular conservative thought (a sort of junior, not quite as good P.J. O’Rourke. And he’d probably be the first to tell you he’s not up there with the great ones.) But don’t let that fool you — the guy DOES know what he’s talking about.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
What Ron Paul accused America of was a vicious and hateful anti-American falsehood. It makes Ron Paul a more harmful and poisonous politican than Barack Obama in my eyes. It was more than worthy for my list.
I would not have included it if Ron Paul had been honest and decent enough to retract it, but he keeps making it. It is shameful beyond the pale.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass wrote; “Just like…oh…every other U.S. peer nation…”
That is not a healthy standard, BG. Unlike you, I don’t want America to be “just like” every other peer nation. I want us to be decent and serious.
The U.S. military had no business falling for political correct nonsense. But we are too much a nation of lawyers and selfish wimps now so it is no big surprise. People of all sorts of sexual proclivities have served in the military and some have served well, but every proclivity was not enshrined in policy. Making one’s active homosexuality an issue with demands for others to embrace it with acceptance in the military context undermines the mission.
Report comment to moderator
It’s amazing to me the mental contortions that must be required in order to view the removal of restrictions against homosexuals serving openly as “making an issue of it”, whereas regulations requiring the dishonorable discharge of servicemen determined to be practicing homosexuals are seen as not “making an issue of it”.
I don’t want America to be “just like” every other peer nation.
I would not complain if the U.S. military were to become as effective as the IDF. Has it suffered all the dire consequences predicted by those who oppose ending DADT?
I want us to be decent
You seem to equate “decent” with “prohibiting homosexuals from serving openly in the military”. That the military now allows them to do so is “indecent”. Correct?
Is it also “indecent” that civilian law permits homosexuals to exist openly in civil society? Should that be corrected?
Report comment to moderator
It is needlessly ignorant to write (regarding the causes of the illegitimate birth rate):
“It’s not welfare; it’s not any moral decay that’s unique to the United States. It’s birth control and abortion, but primarily birth control.”
The causes are multiple, including welfare and other economic factors. They also include spiritual, social, moral, political and practical factors. I do not eliminate birth control and abortion as related too.
Who claimed that the moral decay behind this statistic is or was “unique” to the US? The fact remains, that profound moral decay is at the root of the problem. Heads in the sand won’t help.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, you clearly have no idea what “evidence” is or what the word means. Ron Paul’s accusation that the US killed a million Iragis was irresponsible in the extreme and all the attempts to claim “evidence” for it have been intellectually vacuous and embarassing. It is too serious a charge to pretend that some wild and random emotional survey of selected Iraqis is “evidence.”
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, Obama was lawless in the way he spurned DOMA.
Obama was vague and shifty about how he would “instruct” his Justice Dept. to continue to enforce DOMA until overturned and you know it. In instructing the Justice Dept. not to defend it in the courts, Obama was being arrogant and lawless, unlike any President before him in any comparable way.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – Mr. Obama and the left see nothing wrong with the list you gave at 121
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass @128: There are a lot of hard truths in your Brookings link, thanks for posting it.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I think it is indecent to allow all sorts of new and different definitions of family define the climate and atmosphere of the military. It is indecent to allow sexual chaos and abnormal sexual behavior (whether those who engaged in it have a powerful political lobby behind them as a “group” or not) to drive military personnel and policy. It undermines morale to introduce active sexual confusion into situations where males live and perform in unusually close quarters.
Report comment to moderator
Phos, I think the causes of our growing illegitimacy rates are multiple and that isolating and excluding certain factors is an unnecessary way to approach this problem? In fact, this can cause us to misunderstand and avoid the problem. Much in that article is helpful and informative, but I am sincerely wondering why anyone would exclude factors that clearly relate (as I think was done at #128).
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass, Obama was lawless in the way he spurned DOMA.
—
He did it because he had a fund raiser set up with the GLBT Community.. Ever time Mr. Obama annouced he is going to push the GLBT Community moral values with in 72 hours.. He goes to a fund raiser put on by the Community
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – What factors does the article exclude?
Report comment to moderator
Phos, as I said at #140, I was commenting on the quote at #128, which stated: “It’s not welfare; it’s not any moral decay that’s unique to the United States…”
So, the factors seemingly being excluded were welfare and moral decay, with some sort of qualification that I had not heard anyone else make about some alleged form of moral decay unique to the US.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas Sowell’s op-ed today is about “fairness.” He wrote:
* “Even if additional tax revenue all went to poor single mothers — which it will not — the multiple problems of children raised by poor single mothers would not be cured by throwing money at them. Indeed, the skyrocketing of unwed motherhood began when government welfare programs began throwing money at teenage girls who got pregnant.”
_____________
He also asked:
* “How does allowing politicians to take more money in taxes from successful people, to squander in ways that will improve their own reelection prospects, make anything more “fair” for others?”
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: That you were referring to the comment, and not the article was unclear. The article says that welfare may play a role in certain cases. But the ultimate conclustion was that, as a result of abortion and contraception, the men who fathered these out of wedlock children no longer felt responsible to care for said children if the mother decided to keep them. When men abandon their responsibilities, mothers are left to try to support the children on their own, and thus need welfare.
Where welfare might encourage single motherhood is when the income from welfare is greater than the income a father could provide. However, from my knowledge of welfare here, the father would have to be working a par-time job at minimum wage in order for welfare to exceed his income. That out of wedlock births are in large part due to men who abandon their responsibilities is something that cannot be emphasized too often.
Report comment to moderator
#144 Joel So, what’s he propose to do about it?
Report comment to moderator
#139 Joel Tell it to all the half-breed kids that our guys have produced in the last 100 + years. Moral purity? I think not.
Report comment to moderator
JM at 121 I agree with your assessment. Most of us have never before lived in a culture and under a government that is hostile to our Christian beliefs. What we are beginning to experience is just a taste of the economic mismanagement and hostility to Christianity that has been widespread around the world for 2000 years.
Report comment to moderator
#130 Pentamom1 No he doesn’t. I’m 67 years old and choose what to read carefully. You can’t shame me by making me feel bad for not reading his book. What if I told you you have to read books by Reich, Krugman, Friedman, Wallis, Jakes, Hinn, etc.
Go ahead and cite examples from Goldberg’s book. I’ll be happy to respond.
Report comment to moderator
#148 rickyweaver The slaves did. Our government’s not hostile to our beliefs. If it was you wouldn’t get tax deductions for your giving. If it was you wouldn’t have the amazing proliferation of cults and false prophets and teachers. Scripture NEVER gives us an excuse to whine about persecution. We’re to honor, respect and pray for ALL of our presidents including this one. ALL of our presidents are ministers of God, including this one.
Report comment to moderator
Phos, that I was referring to the quote (and even quoted it before responding) was as clear as I know how to be. Sorry if that’s not clear enough.
Men not feeling responsible to care for the out-of-wedlock children they “father” is not merely or even primarily a result of abortion and contraception (which you stated was “the ultimate conclusion” of that article). But such things are factors.
And in many cases, the presence of welfare led (as a partial causal factor) to higher rates of women having babies out of wedlock and turning to the state for care.
I just disagree that “income” and “economics” are as powerful a causal factor in the high illegitimacy rates as the moral decline factors, and that includes men abandoning their responsibilities (so maybe we agree). But all these factors apply in different ways in different cases.
That out of wedlock births are in large part due to men who abandon their responsibilities is something that cannot be emphasized too often.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, your comments seem to me to reflect a type of hostility toward Christian expression or beliefs (you may be a believer yourself, I don’t know, but I still see the hostility expressed in your comments and all I can deal with here are your comments).
For instance: Raising legitimate concerns about how Christians are increasingly being disrespected and mistreated in today’s secularist culture does not necessarily constitute “whining” about persecution. Please deal with what is said (the comments themselves) rather than criticizing a perceived motive behind them that you may be mis-interpreting.
Report comment to moderator
#152 Joel That’s what I’m doing. What about the rest of the issues I raised?
Report comment to moderator
#151 Joel That’s a pretty good sum.
Report comment to moderator
#152 Joel Except for this current issue of contraception, how are we being disrespected and mistreated by this secular culture, which according to the Constitution we are?
Report comment to moderator
In instructing the Justice Dept. not to defend it in the courts, Obama was being arrogant and lawless, unlike any President before him in any comparable way.
Past presidents have instructed their justice dept’s not to defend laws on the ground they’re not constitutional. Obama instructed his justice dept. not to defend a law on the basis that it isn’t constitutional. Why is the latter “lawless” and not the former?
Report comment to moderator
Pentamom1 and Joel…still waiting.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – Luke, your comments seem to me to reflect a type of hostility toward Christian expression or beliefs.
I’ve detected the same hostility. My guess is that he’s a seminar liberal posing as a Christian, with bromides about how all Christians should ever do is preach the Gospel in their churches, as a means of dissuading conservative people of faith from participating in matters of public affairs. This is borne out by his being essentially a medium for liberal-Democrat talking points, combined with his use of the red herring technique of throwing a discussion off its real topic. He is also internally inconsistent, shifting his position as the need arises, and failing to back up his generalizations with any evidence. Notably, as an example, several people on this thread alone have commented on a single book by Jonah Goldberg. All but one have said that it is well researched and well documented and written; only one has said that it is nonsense or that Goldberg doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Miracle of miracles, all of the commentators have read the book except one — the very one who says it’s nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve lost you. Not sure what you are waiting for. I’ve said my piece and you can say yours.
Report comment to moderator
Joel See #155
#158 Buzzy Thanks for the lies and slander. Ask me any question you want and I’ll respond without lying about you or slandering you. I’ve stated very clearly what I believe but I guess you think I’m lying. BTW, I’ve asked Pentamom1 to cite me examples of Goldberg’s thought so I can comment. Still waiting…why don’t you try?
Report comment to moderator
Well, Luke, you do do a lot of the things I said. And if you really are/were a pastor, I’m sure grateful to God you were never my pastor!
Report comment to moderator
#161 Buzzy Prove it. Cite some of Goldberg’s points and ask me anything you want.
Report comment to moderator
#161 Buzzy Sir, I’m going to have to call you ought. Please cite one statement that I’ve made that is demonstrably untrue. And please cite one statement that I’ve made that indicates that I’m a liberal. And please cite one statement that I’ve made which would make me a poor pastor in your eyes.
Report comment to moderator
out, not ought
Report comment to moderator
How are we being disrespected and mistreated by this secular culture?
Open your eyes, Luke!
* Jan. 2012 – The New York Board of Education voted to ban religious use of schools any time the schools are otherwise unused—even though the churches rent the space, adding millions into the city cashbox. Over 150 congregations were going to have to move to other meeting space—hard to find in New York City.
* Boy Scouts are viciously attacked (for 2 decades now) by our secular culture for encouraging boys to be decent, straight and to honor God.
* Bibles not allowed in many schools and their libraries.
* Many public school teachers are told NOT to say “Merry Christmas in December.
* Prayers banned at many graduations (unlike in the past), and pastors are pressured to NOT pray in Jesus’ name.
* Relentless purging of Christian symbols and expression in the public sphere.
Just a very short list, Luke.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, presumably Paul repeats the statistic not because he loves to lie but because he actually believes it is true. What if it is true? Then it’s absurd to put such a statement on a list of horrors. What if it’s false and he believes it’s true?
And what if it’s false and he knows it’s false? One presidential candidate making one lie, even one you consider egregious, is simply not on the same level as the other things you have listed. You might as well have put “The price of eggs is too high” on the list; it isn’t a comparable item, and your including it suggests more that Paul somehow “gets under your skin” than anything else.
Report comment to moderator
I did not read all 166 comments, but has anyone considered that this new birth rate is a direct result of less abortions? We have seen much victory in that court. We have been successful at saying, and getting people to listen to, “that piece of tissue is alive, a gift from God”, Did we think that only the people having abortions were happily married? NO. But we have FAILED at the grassroots level of leading these men and women to the only ONE Who can make them holy! The behavior has not changed. It’s not a law or lack of a law.
Like Alan Chambers said so profoundly, “The opposite of being homosexual is not being heterosexual, it is holiness.” To the world, he opposite of having an abortion seems to be having a baby, but it’s not. It’s maiden pride, purity, protective chivalry, abstinence until marriage, etc, and, of course holiness. That is the harp we need to play.
Report comment to moderator
Show Them Love,
I don’t believe the abortion rate has gone down as much as the birth-out-of-wedlock rate has gone up–but what time period are you referring to? (It might be true that in a given year, that’s part of the reason for the rise. But the rise over the last 40 years, clearly not. Abortions weren’t being done on more than 50% of pregnancies forty years ago, or at any time in our history, at least for Americans as a whole.)
Report comment to moderator
#165 Joel I agree on those but we are a secular country with freedom of religion and we now contain many religions as well ‘Christian’ cults and false prophets and teachers. Atheists can rightly say that they should be able to do all those things you mentioned. Freedom of religion means freedom for all religions. There is nothing in the Constitution that says this is a Christian nation, nothing. There is nothing that would prevent us from becoming a predominately Muslim nation for example. The Christians in Hebrews had lost everything but the author mocked them for complaining because they hadn’t yet shed any blood! As Christians in a secular country we are obligated to honor, respect and pray for any of our presidents because they are ministers of God. But we are citizens here and we have a responsibility to participate in the best political system designed by man. WE CAN VOTE! The ‘Left” can’t take over anything and neither can the “Right’. The government is ALL of us. ‘We the people’ is ALL of us, not just conservative Christians. We always have the government we want. Our problem now is that the GOP has been offering up terrible candidates and I don’t think any of them can defeat the president. If he wins again I will still honor him, respect him and pray for him. It won’t be a triumph for the ‘Left’, it will be that the American people have spoken. And our #1 priority will still be to preach the Gospel, right?
Report comment to moderator
BTW, I researched Goldberg and his latest book and agree with the negative reviews. He is NOT a Christian so why are we falling all over ourselves to agree with him and his ‘worldview’? If I were to use his method of reasoning I could say this and it would be just as valid. ‘Marx was a Jew. Some of the most powerful Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were Jews as possibly was Lenin’s grandmother. A Communist Jew took over Bavaria in 1919 and putting the two together Hitler said Socialism and Marxism were of the Jews. Jewish banks were financing wars all over the world. The American Jewish banker, Schiff. helped fund the Bolsheviks. The Jews were active in pornography,movies, etc. just as they were in the U.S. Therefore the Jews are are the cause of moral rot in the world. To the Pope the Jews were Christ-killers, a horrendous crime for which they had never repented. So, he remained silent. Goldberg is a Jew. He is a Christ-killer and a Jewish Marxist, posing as a conservative American’. See how easy and DANGEROUS this is?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I do not believe that Ron Paul actually believes that his accusation that we killed a million Iraqis is true at all. I think he just knows it whips up outrage into a froth with the war-weary in our midst. I also think he knows that he is just blaming us for all the killing done by anyone (Iran, Al Qaeda and other insurgents included). For Ron Paul, if anyone is killed in the world, it’s usually our doing. He blames us and sympathizes with the likes of the leaders of Iran–ad takes their side on many matters. The truth is that we were and are deployed to STOP this brutal terrorist killing, and we have done so at a great cost to ourselves.
But since I don’t know for sure what he believes in his heart, I just make the point that it is an unfounded falsehood that offends me to no end.
I am war-weary too, but I love the truth too much to get snookered by obvious populist hate-speech against America. Ron Paul makes cheap shots at his opponents (calling Santorum a “fake” and Gingrich a “chicken hawk”) but this accusation against our military is a much higher outrage. I know people who came back from Vietnam to scorn and hate based on a lot of false information from the media and that disgusts me to this day.
Falsehoods upset me more than most any others major offenses so Ron Paul’s accusation belongs on my list.
Report comment to moderator
#171 Joel I agree they were treated very badly by Democratic and nihilistic punks but what was the false information?
Report comment to moderator
#170 – Get help, Luke15.
Report comment to moderator
#5–agreed.
I saw a video a couple weeks back about Planned Parenthood and their involvement in sex education. The sex ed programs in public schools literally tell children (especially teenagers) that sex is okay as long as you use protection. What happens when the protection fails? It’s not a 100% guarantee.
Report comment to moderator
And of course the replies I get to this argument from liberals is along the lines of “well, you can’t keep them teenagers from experimenting, that’s just not gonna happen” and “sex is part of a healthy relationship, you need it.” Actually, the birth rate has gone up since sex ed was introduced in public schools in the ’60’s/’70’s. I hear that it’s gone down a little bit in recent years, along with 8% less abortions, due to protection and birth control being more widely used.
BUT it’s still way higher than what it used to be.
And honestly, I don’t think keeping yourself pure until marriage is THAT hard–it’s certainly not impossible. Granted, there is much more negative peer pressure in that area nowadays that there used to be.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!