Mindy Beltz tells the interconnected story of Asia Bibi and Salman Taseer in the January 29 issue of World magazine that reveals the face of Islam and it is not pretty.
On Nov. 8, 2010, Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by hanging for blasphemy. This mother of five had been asked by Muslim co-workers to fetch water and then was told that it was unclean because she was a Christian. Her crime? Remarking that, "Aren't we all humans?" For this she was tried and found guilty for insulting the prophet Muhammad. Taseer who was governor of the' Province, defended Bibi, calling the blasphemy law "a black law". Muslim religious leaders rose up in venomous opposition, declaring that Taseer had forfeited his status as a Muslim and calling for his removal as governor.
Taseer did not back down, defying the Mullahs, and was shot dead by one of his bodyguards. 50,000 protesters demonstrated on behalf of the killer and close to 300 lawyers want to defend him. Taseer, who was educated in the West, suffered the consequences of expressing his opinion in a Muslim world that brooks no dissent.
Pakistan's blasphemy laws have only been on the books since 1980's. The laws, rooted in the Quran, are backed by clergy and scholars who spread violence toward anyone who dares question the tenants of Islam.
The West has to wake up to the fact that the threat to its existence is not radical Islam, it is not Islamic jihadists, it is not Mulims per se, the threat is Islam itself. This is a political-religious system in which government cannot be separated from the religion. A system that requires absolute adherence, does not tolerate individual thought or expression and will resort to violence to make authoritarian government the rule.
We cannot afford to continue condemning acts of terror while not honestly confronting the ideology behind them. We do so at our peril. So far, in the United States, we are fortunate that Muslims compose a minute part of the population, but we only have to look to Europe to see what our future looks like if we don't acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Are All Religions Equally True?
Professor Larry Timbs of Winthrop University has written that in one of his courses there is a discussion taking place of an article entitled "Religious Diversity". He refers to a passage in the article that makes the claim that "being a Christian does not commit one to to the view that all other religions are completely wrong". I would agree with that statement, provided that the word "completely" is emphasized.
Surprisingly, I took a little encouragement from the fact that 14-15 of the 17 students in the professor's class identified themselves as Christian, but was disappointed at their commitment to their faith and the lack of clarity in their thought process. The church obviously has a lot of work to do in the area of discipleship and critical thinking.
Professor Timbs tells a cute little story of Joe not minding which church van he gets on as "we are all trying to get to the same place". The conclusion that he draws from the story is a polar opposite of the conclusion that I would draw. To Professor Timbs, the story illustrates the idea that one single religion or faith cannot be the one and only way to salvation or eternal life because there is such a diversity of faiths. Never mind that, in the story, each van that shows up will take Joe to a Christian church. Not being particular about a Christian denomination is a far cry from not being particular about a specific faith.
When he says that one person's truth or faith cannot possibly be the only path to salvation, Professor Timbs reveals a world view that seems to be decidedly "modernist", the idea that absolute truth doesn't exist, i.e., you have your truth and I have my truth and his worldview may even extend to being "post-modernists", that there is no such thing as truth at all, i.e., that we each get make up our own truth.
Now, in logic, the law of non-contradiction says that two opposing claims to truth cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. While each of the world's religions contain a glimmer of truth (hence the insistence on emphasizing "completely"), at some point they each make a truth claim that directly opposes the claims of Christianity. For Christians, it is when these claims differ from Biblical teaching that other religions must be considered false.
The entire history of Judaism points to a coming Messiah, but according to Christianity the Messiah arrived in the God-Man Jesus Christ and he was rejected. Now either Jesus was the long awaited Messiah or he was not, but the claims of Judaism and Christianity oppose each other on this point and many others. Those claims cannot both be true.
Islam rejects all of the key doctrines of the Christian faith. It certainly rejects the idea that Jesus was God incarnate and it denies his death on the cross. It rejects the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Hence, Islam not only differs from Christianity, but opposes it on all counts. If its claims are true, then the claims of Christianity are false.
The Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism deny the existence of a personal God and also deny the existence of sin. For Hindus and Buddhists God is an impersonal being and there is no such thing as the need for salvation. These beliefs are a direct refutation of Christianity and either they are true or Christianity is true, but both cannot be true.
Christian apologist Peter Kreeft, of Boston College, says, " Christianity is like no other religion. Instead of the founder pointing to the religion, the religion points to the founder. Buddha said: "Look not to me, look to my doctrine". Christ said, "Come unto me....I am the way the truth and the life." If He is God, then all other religions, however many great truths they may contain, can be nothing more than torn pieces from Christ's seamless garment.....The traditional Christian "triumphalistic" claim of superiority over all other religions is not a claim about Christianity (and certainly not about Christians) but about Christ. That is why it is non-negotiable".
Anyone who claims to be a Christian and would agree that Christ is "just one path to God among many" either have not read the Gospels or if they have read them, don't understand the fallacy of making such a statement.
The great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis saw the issue clearly when he wrote, "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg-- or else he would the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to."
Peter Kreeft is right. The question of salvation is not about Christianity or other religions, it is about Christ. C.S. Lewis is right. Christ is either who he said he was, and his claim was that he was God incarnate, or he is not worth bothering with. So when Jesus says that he is the only way to salvation, is he right? The evidence is there for anyone to investigate and I daresay an honest investigation will lead to the conclusion that yes he is.
Surprisingly, I took a little encouragement from the fact that 14-15 of the 17 students in the professor's class identified themselves as Christian, but was disappointed at their commitment to their faith and the lack of clarity in their thought process. The church obviously has a lot of work to do in the area of discipleship and critical thinking.
Professor Timbs tells a cute little story of Joe not minding which church van he gets on as "we are all trying to get to the same place". The conclusion that he draws from the story is a polar opposite of the conclusion that I would draw. To Professor Timbs, the story illustrates the idea that one single religion or faith cannot be the one and only way to salvation or eternal life because there is such a diversity of faiths. Never mind that, in the story, each van that shows up will take Joe to a Christian church. Not being particular about a Christian denomination is a far cry from not being particular about a specific faith.
When he says that one person's truth or faith cannot possibly be the only path to salvation, Professor Timbs reveals a world view that seems to be decidedly "modernist", the idea that absolute truth doesn't exist, i.e., you have your truth and I have my truth and his worldview may even extend to being "post-modernists", that there is no such thing as truth at all, i.e., that we each get make up our own truth.
Now, in logic, the law of non-contradiction says that two opposing claims to truth cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. While each of the world's religions contain a glimmer of truth (hence the insistence on emphasizing "completely"), at some point they each make a truth claim that directly opposes the claims of Christianity. For Christians, it is when these claims differ from Biblical teaching that other religions must be considered false.
The entire history of Judaism points to a coming Messiah, but according to Christianity the Messiah arrived in the God-Man Jesus Christ and he was rejected. Now either Jesus was the long awaited Messiah or he was not, but the claims of Judaism and Christianity oppose each other on this point and many others. Those claims cannot both be true.
Islam rejects all of the key doctrines of the Christian faith. It certainly rejects the idea that Jesus was God incarnate and it denies his death on the cross. It rejects the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Hence, Islam not only differs from Christianity, but opposes it on all counts. If its claims are true, then the claims of Christianity are false.
The Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism deny the existence of a personal God and also deny the existence of sin. For Hindus and Buddhists God is an impersonal being and there is no such thing as the need for salvation. These beliefs are a direct refutation of Christianity and either they are true or Christianity is true, but both cannot be true.
Christian apologist Peter Kreeft, of Boston College, says, " Christianity is like no other religion. Instead of the founder pointing to the religion, the religion points to the founder. Buddha said: "Look not to me, look to my doctrine". Christ said, "Come unto me....I am the way the truth and the life." If He is God, then all other religions, however many great truths they may contain, can be nothing more than torn pieces from Christ's seamless garment.....The traditional Christian "triumphalistic" claim of superiority over all other religions is not a claim about Christianity (and certainly not about Christians) but about Christ. That is why it is non-negotiable".
Anyone who claims to be a Christian and would agree that Christ is "just one path to God among many" either have not read the Gospels or if they have read them, don't understand the fallacy of making such a statement.
The great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis saw the issue clearly when he wrote, "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg-- or else he would the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to."
Peter Kreeft is right. The question of salvation is not about Christianity or other religions, it is about Christ. C.S. Lewis is right. Christ is either who he said he was, and his claim was that he was God incarnate, or he is not worth bothering with. So when Jesus says that he is the only way to salvation, is he right? The evidence is there for anyone to investigate and I daresay an honest investigation will lead to the conclusion that yes he is.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Peaceful Religion
Faleh Hassan Almaleki moved his family from Iraq to Phoenix, AZ, in the mid 1990's. As his daughter, Noor Almaleki, grew up in America, she developed a longing to live a normal life as an American. At 17, she refused to enter into an arranged marriage in Iraq which infuriated her father. At 19, she moved into her own apartment and began work in a fast food place, but had to quit due to harassment from her parents.
In 2009, she moved into the home of her boyfriends parents due to physical abuse from her father, who continually harassed her and the parents. On October 20, 2009, Noor was visiting a Department of Economic Security Office with Amal Khalaf, the mother of her boyfriend. When departing the office, both women were run over by Faleh Almaleki in a hit and run. Amal recovered, but Noor subsequently died of her injuries.
Her crime? Becoming too Westernized in the eyes of her father.
This was no "Islamic radical", this was a follower of the tenets of mainstream Islam who is rightfully on trial for murder. In an Islamic country, nothing would have come of his actions.
Peaceful religion? How many Christian parents kill their children for refusing to accept Christ?
In 2009, she moved into the home of her boyfriends parents due to physical abuse from her father, who continually harassed her and the parents. On October 20, 2009, Noor was visiting a Department of Economic Security Office with Amal Khalaf, the mother of her boyfriend. When departing the office, both women were run over by Faleh Almaleki in a hit and run. Amal recovered, but Noor subsequently died of her injuries.
Her crime? Becoming too Westernized in the eyes of her father.
This was no "Islamic radical", this was a follower of the tenets of mainstream Islam who is rightfully on trial for murder. In an Islamic country, nothing would have come of his actions.
Peaceful religion? How many Christian parents kill their children for refusing to accept Christ?
Friday, December 17, 2010
Unintended Consequences
"Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy."--1 Corinthians 4:2
I just finished watching John Stossel's, "Promises Gone Wrong", which outlined the unintended consequences of government programs initiated by Congress. Now while Congress may have good intentions, when they use our tax dollars for social or economic engineering, things never seem to work out. Here are the programs in order:
1. Cash for clunkers--billions of tax dollars that caused a short term spike in care sales, but did nothing for the long term. The fallout was that used car prices rose by an average of $1800 per car. The question is "What would Americans have done with the money spent on new cars that they did not need.?"
2. Raising the minimum wage--did nothing for the low entry worker but raise the unemployment rate in that sector by 25%.
3. Title 9-The program that required colleges to have a percentage of female/male athletes that reflected the student body as a whole. The result was that many male athletic programs were cut, even if they were self sufficient. Before the act was passed there were over 100 male gymnastics programs, now there are 17. It doesn't bode well for this Olympic sport.
4. Sporting venues--stadiums, including Olympic venues, subsidized by taxpayer dollars with the promise that it would provide jobs and revenue to the local community. This boondoggle never panned out as millions more were spent that was recovered as the venues sat empty for most of the year.
5. Credit cards--congressional reform did nothing but raise interest rates, caused lenders to deny credit to those who previously qualified and drove those borrowers to payday lenders and loan sharks.
6. Health Insurance reform--has already resulted in rising premiums, people having their policies dropped, companies leaving the industry or dropping child only policies because of the "previous condition" requirement. To top it off, there have been over 100 waivers, granted mostly to unions, to escape the requirements.
7. Family based agricultural business-offering billions in tax write offs for individuals to enter certain sectors such as raising and breeding alpacas. Has created a market bubble where supply vastly exceeds demand and will eventually cause billions in losses.
8. Energy--$50 billion in ethanol subsidies equal $1.78 per gallon of ethanol produced. Prices of food and feed have gone up and ethanol production harms the environment more than the use of oil.
9. Home ownership--is costing billions as congress forced banks into high risk loans to people who could not afford it.
10. Government programs--by the hundreds, once funded, never go away and have led to the largest debt and deficit in the nation's history.
In the Christian worldview, there is a concept called "sphere sovereignty". What this means is that God has designed the world to work a certain way, has given specific roles to the family, church, government and the individual. When one of these institutions tries to operate in a "sphere" that is not its purview, things don't work the way they should. Congress seems intent on repeatedly proving that this is true.
I just finished watching John Stossel's, "Promises Gone Wrong", which outlined the unintended consequences of government programs initiated by Congress. Now while Congress may have good intentions, when they use our tax dollars for social or economic engineering, things never seem to work out. Here are the programs in order:
1. Cash for clunkers--billions of tax dollars that caused a short term spike in care sales, but did nothing for the long term. The fallout was that used car prices rose by an average of $1800 per car. The question is "What would Americans have done with the money spent on new cars that they did not need.?"
2. Raising the minimum wage--did nothing for the low entry worker but raise the unemployment rate in that sector by 25%.
3. Title 9-The program that required colleges to have a percentage of female/male athletes that reflected the student body as a whole. The result was that many male athletic programs were cut, even if they were self sufficient. Before the act was passed there were over 100 male gymnastics programs, now there are 17. It doesn't bode well for this Olympic sport.
4. Sporting venues--stadiums, including Olympic venues, subsidized by taxpayer dollars with the promise that it would provide jobs and revenue to the local community. This boondoggle never panned out as millions more were spent that was recovered as the venues sat empty for most of the year.
5. Credit cards--congressional reform did nothing but raise interest rates, caused lenders to deny credit to those who previously qualified and drove those borrowers to payday lenders and loan sharks.
6. Health Insurance reform--has already resulted in rising premiums, people having their policies dropped, companies leaving the industry or dropping child only policies because of the "previous condition" requirement. To top it off, there have been over 100 waivers, granted mostly to unions, to escape the requirements.
7. Family based agricultural business-offering billions in tax write offs for individuals to enter certain sectors such as raising and breeding alpacas. Has created a market bubble where supply vastly exceeds demand and will eventually cause billions in losses.
8. Energy--$50 billion in ethanol subsidies equal $1.78 per gallon of ethanol produced. Prices of food and feed have gone up and ethanol production harms the environment more than the use of oil.
9. Home ownership--is costing billions as congress forced banks into high risk loans to people who could not afford it.
10. Government programs--by the hundreds, once funded, never go away and have led to the largest debt and deficit in the nation's history.
In the Christian worldview, there is a concept called "sphere sovereignty". What this means is that God has designed the world to work a certain way, has given specific roles to the family, church, government and the individual. When one of these institutions tries to operate in a "sphere" that is not its purview, things don't work the way they should. Congress seems intent on repeatedly proving that this is true.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" II
Is it just me or does anyone else think it odd that the Pentagon chose this particular time to publish it's report on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Could it be possible that homosexual activists put pressure on the White House, who in turn put pressure on the Pentagon to publish the report in an effort to give Democrats enough cover to repeal the policy during this lame duck session of congress knowing that this is their last chance to do so. Nah! I'm sure the timing is just a coincidence since this is the most pressing problem currently facing the nation.
As for the report itself, the main stream media has trumpeted the finding that seventy percent of soldiers polled said that they did not think that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would harm morale, conveniently leaving out the finding that sixty per cent of combat troops think that reversing the policy would have a negative impact on morale and reduce combat effectiveness.
Now I was a Naval Aviator for twenty-three years, retiring after a squadron command, and one thing I know is that the further up the ladder one climbs in his military career, the more political the environment. This is especially true after an individual starts pinning on stars and finds himself in Washington. Now so far, the two voices who have spoken out in favor of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" are Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a political appointee, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Admiral Mullen, maybe because of his billet as Chairman, seems to have become more politician than warrior on this issue. Maybe concerns over funding is trumping the welfare of those serving under him.
Fortunately for our troops, Admiral Mullen's fellow Joint Chiefs have introduced some sanity into the discussion, because Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Ames, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen Norman Schwartz and Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. George Casey all have spoken out against repealing "don't ask, don't tell". All three have expressed their opinion before Congress that repeal would harm combat readiness.
We have seen this social experimentation with our armed forces before. After the 1991 Tailhook incident (which was probably a setup), women were allowed into roles that were traditionally off limits. The result has been a predictable degradation in combat effectiveness as young men and women were thrown into close quarters for extended periods of time. The effect of pregnancy on manpower strength and the effects of fraternization on morale have damaged our war fighting capability. Although the military, as always, has adapted and overcome, the insistence of treating military service as another jobs program has had a deleterious effect on our war fighting capability. Now liberals want to add another sexual component.
Not allowing homosexuals to serve openly is not a matter of fairness and cannot equated to the struggle to racially integrate the services. One does not have to do anything to be born with a certain ethnicity, but one does have to perform an act to be a homosexual. Homosexual activists make the argument that those who want to serve their county should be able to do so, regardless of conduct, but military service is not a right, it is a privilege. There are plenty of young Americans who would love to serve their country but cannot do so because of various disqualifications as such as height, weight, age, fitness, etc. "Don't ask, don't tell" is just one more such restriction that maintains the combat integrity of our combat arms.
No one seems to want to acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room: that homosexual acts are a sexual perversion. That is not a religious statement, it is a common sense observation. If one stands a nude male and female side by side, one can readily see how they fit together sexually. One would have to really stretch credulity to explain how the body is designed for homosexual sex. It is no wonder that the majority of our combat troops would feel uncomfortable in serving with open homosexuals. They are instinctively repulsed by the thoughts of what homosexuals do and have a perfect right to be repulsed by that which is repulsive.
There is a vast difference between sleeping in a fifty man bunk room with someone that you suspect may be a homosexual and having that person openly convey his same sex preference. If homosexuals are so patriotic, and want to do the most good for their country, it seems to me that they would not want to harm the nation's ability to defend itself by repeal of "don't ask, don't tell".
Now call me crazy, but I was of the opinion that the only reason that we have a military is so that we have the combat capability to defend the nation. Anything that would detract from this capability should be rejected out of hand.
As for the report itself, the main stream media has trumpeted the finding that seventy percent of soldiers polled said that they did not think that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would harm morale, conveniently leaving out the finding that sixty per cent of combat troops think that reversing the policy would have a negative impact on morale and reduce combat effectiveness.
Now I was a Naval Aviator for twenty-three years, retiring after a squadron command, and one thing I know is that the further up the ladder one climbs in his military career, the more political the environment. This is especially true after an individual starts pinning on stars and finds himself in Washington. Now so far, the two voices who have spoken out in favor of repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" are Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a political appointee, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. Admiral Mullen, maybe because of his billet as Chairman, seems to have become more politician than warrior on this issue. Maybe concerns over funding is trumping the welfare of those serving under him.
Fortunately for our troops, Admiral Mullen's fellow Joint Chiefs have introduced some sanity into the discussion, because Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Ames, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen Norman Schwartz and Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. George Casey all have spoken out against repealing "don't ask, don't tell". All three have expressed their opinion before Congress that repeal would harm combat readiness.
We have seen this social experimentation with our armed forces before. After the 1991 Tailhook incident (which was probably a setup), women were allowed into roles that were traditionally off limits. The result has been a predictable degradation in combat effectiveness as young men and women were thrown into close quarters for extended periods of time. The effect of pregnancy on manpower strength and the effects of fraternization on morale have damaged our war fighting capability. Although the military, as always, has adapted and overcome, the insistence of treating military service as another jobs program has had a deleterious effect on our war fighting capability. Now liberals want to add another sexual component.
Not allowing homosexuals to serve openly is not a matter of fairness and cannot equated to the struggle to racially integrate the services. One does not have to do anything to be born with a certain ethnicity, but one does have to perform an act to be a homosexual. Homosexual activists make the argument that those who want to serve their county should be able to do so, regardless of conduct, but military service is not a right, it is a privilege. There are plenty of young Americans who would love to serve their country but cannot do so because of various disqualifications as such as height, weight, age, fitness, etc. "Don't ask, don't tell" is just one more such restriction that maintains the combat integrity of our combat arms.
No one seems to want to acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room: that homosexual acts are a sexual perversion. That is not a religious statement, it is a common sense observation. If one stands a nude male and female side by side, one can readily see how they fit together sexually. One would have to really stretch credulity to explain how the body is designed for homosexual sex. It is no wonder that the majority of our combat troops would feel uncomfortable in serving with open homosexuals. They are instinctively repulsed by the thoughts of what homosexuals do and have a perfect right to be repulsed by that which is repulsive.
There is a vast difference between sleeping in a fifty man bunk room with someone that you suspect may be a homosexual and having that person openly convey his same sex preference. If homosexuals are so patriotic, and want to do the most good for their country, it seems to me that they would not want to harm the nation's ability to defend itself by repeal of "don't ask, don't tell".
Now call me crazy, but I was of the opinion that the only reason that we have a military is so that we have the combat capability to defend the nation. Anything that would detract from this capability should be rejected out of hand.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Value of Marriage
A recent study by the Pew Research Center purports to show that 39 per cent of young Americans say that marriage is becoming obsolete. This is alarming news and does not bode well for the future of the nation, because the basis of any society is the family, and the basis of the family is a marriage whereby a couple raises and trains the next generation to take their place in society as socialized, productive, contributing citizens.
The Pew Study reveals that twenty-nine per cent of children in this country are living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never married. This is a five fold increase from 1960. It is no surprise to learn that the younger generation has a dim view of marriage since one third of marriages in this country end in divorce. Those who are Christians may decry this state of affairs, but those who are identified as evangelical Christians by George Barna actually have a divorce rate that is slightly greater than the population at large.
Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University is quoted as saying, "Now there are several ways to have a successful family life, and more people accept them". Nothing could be further from the truth. More people may accept different definitions of family, but the trend away from the two parent, married heterosexual couple is a recipe for disaster for our country.
Today, most get married fully expecting their new partner to fulfill all of their expectations. When in the natural course of events, the partner doesn't, then the choice is usually to opt out of the marriage.
Divorce has been sold as a normal occurrence when one partner is not "fulfilled". We have bought into the lie that it is better for everyone involved to opt out of an "unhappy" marriage rather than remain and have everyone be miserable. Never mind research that reveals that those who stay and work out their problems claim to be happier five years later than they have ever been in their lives.
For Christ Followers, marriage has a religious aspect to it, but even for the non-religious it has utilitarian benefits that no other institution brings to the table.
When children are involved the absence of both a mom and dad in the home has a tremendous social cost. Of the children under age 6 who live below the poverty line, 59 percent live with single mothers, while a mere 6 percent live in households with married couples. Single parent families make less than one third of two parent families and the poverty rate for single parent families is six times that of two parent families. Divorce and out-of-wedlock births are extraordinarily costly to American taxpayers. The Institute for Marriage and Family puts the price tag at over $100 billion every year. We have spent billions on the "war on poverty", but if Congress wants to combat poverty, the place to start is to institute policy that strengthens marriage.
The financial cost is not the only price that America is paying for devaluing marriage. Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship says, "Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. .........Every time I set foot inside a prison, I see the results of splintered families. So many of the prisoners I talk to tell me about growing up without dad."
Indeed, the Department of Justice reports that more than 60 percent of prisoners grew up in households without a father. Some 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes. Without a doubt the absence of a father in the home contributes to the reason that we can not build prisons fast enough. If we want to solve the crime problem, we have to find a way to strengthen marriage.
The psychological effect of divorce on children is disastrous. By almost every measure, children in divorced families fare worse: emotional problems, early sexual experimentation, dropping out of school, delinquency, teen pregnancy and drug use. Adults may think that they are doing the right thing to abandon a marriage that no longer provides them the thrill of romance, but their inability to sustain the relationship that counted the most to them and the subsequent loss of connection to their fathers seems to have eroded the young peoples' sense of identity and ability to trust others and commit themselves.
Nor does remarriage seem to be a solution: children in step families were two to three times more likely than their counterparts to suffer emotional and behavioral problems and twice as likely to have learning problems. The associated social costs to American taxpayers for these social ills is in the billions every year.
After viewing how their parents have walked away from marriage, the young are trending toward co-habitation in an attempt to avoid the pitfalls, but this is not the answer either. Living together without commitment is not the same as marriage. One of the partners has his "stuff" and the other has her "stuff" with the idea that either can leave at any time. If a co-habiting couple does marry, they have an 80% greater chance of divorce, which puts them back at square one.
In an era when Americans are looking for answers to their economic, social and crime problems they have to look no further than the solution of strengthening the institution of marriage. Far from being obsolete, solid marriages are more in need than ever before.
The Pew Study reveals that twenty-nine per cent of children in this country are living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never married. This is a five fold increase from 1960. It is no surprise to learn that the younger generation has a dim view of marriage since one third of marriages in this country end in divorce. Those who are Christians may decry this state of affairs, but those who are identified as evangelical Christians by George Barna actually have a divorce rate that is slightly greater than the population at large.
Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University is quoted as saying, "Now there are several ways to have a successful family life, and more people accept them". Nothing could be further from the truth. More people may accept different definitions of family, but the trend away from the two parent, married heterosexual couple is a recipe for disaster for our country.
Today, most get married fully expecting their new partner to fulfill all of their expectations. When in the natural course of events, the partner doesn't, then the choice is usually to opt out of the marriage.
Divorce has been sold as a normal occurrence when one partner is not "fulfilled". We have bought into the lie that it is better for everyone involved to opt out of an "unhappy" marriage rather than remain and have everyone be miserable. Never mind research that reveals that those who stay and work out their problems claim to be happier five years later than they have ever been in their lives.
For Christ Followers, marriage has a religious aspect to it, but even for the non-religious it has utilitarian benefits that no other institution brings to the table.
When children are involved the absence of both a mom and dad in the home has a tremendous social cost. Of the children under age 6 who live below the poverty line, 59 percent live with single mothers, while a mere 6 percent live in households with married couples. Single parent families make less than one third of two parent families and the poverty rate for single parent families is six times that of two parent families. Divorce and out-of-wedlock births are extraordinarily costly to American taxpayers. The Institute for Marriage and Family puts the price tag at over $100 billion every year. We have spent billions on the "war on poverty", but if Congress wants to combat poverty, the place to start is to institute policy that strengthens marriage.
The financial cost is not the only price that America is paying for devaluing marriage. Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship says, "Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. .........Every time I set foot inside a prison, I see the results of splintered families. So many of the prisoners I talk to tell me about growing up without dad."
Indeed, the Department of Justice reports that more than 60 percent of prisoners grew up in households without a father. Some 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes. Without a doubt the absence of a father in the home contributes to the reason that we can not build prisons fast enough. If we want to solve the crime problem, we have to find a way to strengthen marriage.
The psychological effect of divorce on children is disastrous. By almost every measure, children in divorced families fare worse: emotional problems, early sexual experimentation, dropping out of school, delinquency, teen pregnancy and drug use. Adults may think that they are doing the right thing to abandon a marriage that no longer provides them the thrill of romance, but their inability to sustain the relationship that counted the most to them and the subsequent loss of connection to their fathers seems to have eroded the young peoples' sense of identity and ability to trust others and commit themselves.
Nor does remarriage seem to be a solution: children in step families were two to three times more likely than their counterparts to suffer emotional and behavioral problems and twice as likely to have learning problems. The associated social costs to American taxpayers for these social ills is in the billions every year.
After viewing how their parents have walked away from marriage, the young are trending toward co-habitation in an attempt to avoid the pitfalls, but this is not the answer either. Living together without commitment is not the same as marriage. One of the partners has his "stuff" and the other has her "stuff" with the idea that either can leave at any time. If a co-habiting couple does marry, they have an 80% greater chance of divorce, which puts them back at square one.
In an era when Americans are looking for answers to their economic, social and crime problems they have to look no further than the solution of strengthening the institution of marriage. Far from being obsolete, solid marriages are more in need than ever before.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Homecoming
My oldest son Saddler came home Saturday after a year's tour in Afghanistan with the 178th Field Artillery of the South Carolina Army National Guard. This was the unit's second combat deployment, having deployed previously to Iraq in 2005. All of the South Carolina troops made it home safely although they did lose two soldiers from the Pennsylvania Guard who were attached to their unit. Needless to say, it is a burden lifted from the hearts of a father and mother to have their son safely back on U.S. soil and we grieve for those whose ultimate fear has been realized.
The unit left Afghanistan on November the 5th, went to Kyrgyzstan, Bosnia, Maine and on to Camp Atterbury, Indiana where they were debriefed and went through some family counseling sessions on reintegration into family life. Having a husband away from home for a year is extremely hard on active duty wives, but more so on National Guard wives as they don't have the built in support system of having others around that are going through the same hardship. While those who are not military families can sympathize, they can not possibly really know the sacrifice that is being paid to keep them free. Not only are the troops paying a tremendous price to keep us free and safe, but the families, especially the wives are paying a steep price also. During my Navy career, we had a saying, "Navy wife, the toughest job in the Navy", and I think during these times, its true for every branch of service.
We were down for the welcome home ceremony at Eagle Aviation in Columbia and I am not ashamed to admit that there were tears in my eyes when the hangar doors opened and the unit marched in. I am so proud of the sacrifice that the young men have made and to see the joy on the faces of the families at their return is almost overwhelming.
There is one neat story, at least I think its neat, about Saddler's return. During his deployment, we kept a lighted electric candle in our window signifying his absence. The bulb had lasted, without replacement, throughout the deployment. In fact it was still lit on Sunday morning when we left to go welcome him home. Upon our return, it was out. Now some may consider this a coincidence, but I prefer to think that it is God's way of telling us that He has been faithful to answer our prayers.
In any event, just like Ty Pennington on Extreme Home Makeover. There is only one thing left to say: Welcome home, 178th, Welcome home!!!!!!
The unit left Afghanistan on November the 5th, went to Kyrgyzstan, Bosnia, Maine and on to Camp Atterbury, Indiana where they were debriefed and went through some family counseling sessions on reintegration into family life. Having a husband away from home for a year is extremely hard on active duty wives, but more so on National Guard wives as they don't have the built in support system of having others around that are going through the same hardship. While those who are not military families can sympathize, they can not possibly really know the sacrifice that is being paid to keep them free. Not only are the troops paying a tremendous price to keep us free and safe, but the families, especially the wives are paying a steep price also. During my Navy career, we had a saying, "Navy wife, the toughest job in the Navy", and I think during these times, its true for every branch of service.
We were down for the welcome home ceremony at Eagle Aviation in Columbia and I am not ashamed to admit that there were tears in my eyes when the hangar doors opened and the unit marched in. I am so proud of the sacrifice that the young men have made and to see the joy on the faces of the families at their return is almost overwhelming.
There is one neat story, at least I think its neat, about Saddler's return. During his deployment, we kept a lighted electric candle in our window signifying his absence. The bulb had lasted, without replacement, throughout the deployment. In fact it was still lit on Sunday morning when we left to go welcome him home. Upon our return, it was out. Now some may consider this a coincidence, but I prefer to think that it is God's way of telling us that He has been faithful to answer our prayers.
In any event, just like Ty Pennington on Extreme Home Makeover. There is only one thing left to say: Welcome home, 178th, Welcome home!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)