The Left frequently defines ‘social justice’ differently than Judeo-Christian values do. For most on the Left, ‘social justice’ means social equality and social fairness. It is not fair that some people have more than others. This is why the Left believes that courts should be far more than umpires when adjudicating justice: they should be promoting fairness and equality. The other difference…is that leftist ideologies are so preoccupied with ‘social justice’ that they generally ignore personal character development. Judeo-Christian values believe the road to a just society is paved by individual character development; the Left believes it is paved with action on a macro level. That is one reason the Left is far more interested than the Right, i.e., religious Jews and Christians and secular conservatives, in passing laws, whether through legislation or through the actions of judges. That is how the Left believes you make a better society. There is, incidentally, a second reason the Left passes so many laws: As the Left breaks down the self-discipline of Judeo-Christian religions, more and more laws are needed simply to keep people from devouring each other.
I’m impressed by Dennis Prager’s ability to delve beneath superficial talking points and search for a deeper, more thoughtful understanding of an issue. His views are to the right of my own, but I admire the way he pinpoints the key issues for a more insightful discussion.
Here Mr. Prager argues that concern for social justice without a concurrent emphasis on building individual responsibility and personal virtue is unbalanced and insufficient from a Christian point of view. I agree with that.
Would Mr. Prager agree that an exclusive focus on individual responsibility and personal virtue that ignores issues of social justice is equally deficient? As responsible and virtuous as a person there may be sometimes there are overwhelming socio-economic obtacles that make it impossible for a person to escape poverty on their own.
Mr. Prager argues against seeking equality of outcome at the finish line for success in life. Once again I agree, but would ask if there shouldn’t at least be equality at the starting line in that race.
Dean,what about the particulars?
The premise sounds good: “equal opportunity” as opposed to “equality of outcome.” I submit the goal of “equal opportunity” for all of young people is, in fact, authentically and traditionally American. Americans reject the social class divisions which still have great power in the U.K. and other places such as India with its caste system. Americans supported public school system which provided a good start in life to millions of legal immigrant children speaking dozens of different languages in schoolrooms equipped with little than an blackboard and a few classic texts. Using measurements developed by the United Nations, the United States has one of the most balanced distributions of income in the world.
I would add to Prager’s comments that the cultural Left’s work in breaking down the family also destroyed a institution which has served as a “safety net.” throwning the population ever more dependent on government.
However, the “devil is in the details.” What programs or policies do you have in mind?
Asterisk. In case you claim that you can’t keep up today with just a blackboard and a few classic texts, I would point out that all of the mathematics that I know has been taught to me by a teacher with little more than a blackboard and a piece of chalk. You can also teach the most advanced forms of computer programming with a basic computer that retails for about $400. I learned to program about 15 years before I ever owned my own computer. Computers in public libraries could easily be used to teach and learn programing, something not available to me when I first starting studying programming. Providinglabs for the experimental sciences is more expensive, granted, however, unless the level of mathematical competency of the average student is improved there isn’t much point in sending him or her to the lab for any experimental work.
My friend who used to teach in the Chicago Public School system told me he had to bring snacks to the inner city school where he taught every day because inevitably there would two or three children too distracted by hunger to learn. We can argue about the root cause of hunger in America, but the fact is those hungry children did not enjoy “equal opportunity” and it’s sheer hypocrisy to pretend that they did.
Prager’s succinct distillation of the conservative approach to fighting poverty is “if you want to build a better society, build better people, and stronger families.” I strongly agree with this. One example: In the summer of 1995 Chicago suffered a debilitating heat wave that took the lives of nearly 800 elderly Chicagoans. Sociologists who later studied the event were stunned to see that almost all of the victims were Caucasian or African-American, while very few of them came from the socio-economically comparable Hispanic neighborohoods. With their stronger family networks the Hispanics had done a much better job of looking after their elderly parents during the heat wave.
This did not mean that the Hispanic community had overcome all their socio-economic obstacles. Gang violence and low high-school graduation rates hindered their progress. I would like to see Prager state that you don’t build better people and stronger families through scolding and moralizing alone, and that stronger families are not an excuse for anti-government libertarianism. Sometimes we have to invest in people to help make them stronger and better. Some level of government intervention and support is required to address poverty. You can’t have strong families when both parents have to work long hours at low wages and still struggle to pay for basic neccesities.
Some problems that weaken families and hinder individual advancement are structural and macroeconomic in nature. Our US health care system is slowly collapsing. Between 2000 and 2004 the number of employers offering health insurance to employees fell from 69% to 60%. Ford Motors now says that $1,400 of the cost of every car goes towards health insurance. The CEO of Starbucks now say that he pays more for health insurance than for coffee beans. If this trend continues the rising unreimbursed costs for the uninsured, passed on to the shrinking number of insured will result in insurance premiums that will be unsupportable for most employers.
I predict that government will have to step in and we will have universal health care coverage in 10 years. No amount of individual virtue or personal responsibility alone can forestall that.
Dean writes: “I predict that government will have to step in and we will have universal health care coverage in 10 years. No amount of individual virtue or personal responsibility alone can forestall that.”
Dean is absolutely correct. The facts are obvious. The wheels are coming off and universal care is inevitable. Too much demand by a public with unrealistic expectations and lagging supply are creating the perfect storm. Something will give. If Hillary moves back into the White House she will find the fertile soil that was missing last time around.
The sad thing is that our health care system has already reached apogee and its descent will become more obvious. Crushing debt, a lack of political will, a fiscally and educationally undisciplined populace and unrelenting global competition will, if unchecked, reduce us to third world status.
Social Shame and Better Families
Dean writes” you don’t build better people and stronger families through scolding and moralizing alone.”
You don’t really believe in Christian morality then, Dean. You don’t really think that the Church’s teaching on sexual conduct is important, or that breaking the laws of God really has an unavoidable negative consequence in thie world. Your policy is to trivialize, excuse and give cheap forgiveness to sin and serious misconduct, then shift the cost of the consequences to the responsible members of society. Prior to the 60’s, Americans enforced responsible sexual conduct through exerting control over their children and shaming those who brought children into the world outside of marriage.
When I was in high school, unwed pregnancy was met with universal social shame. This meant that people who brought children into the world carelessly LOST SOMETHING GOOD: social approval. Everyone in society agreed that those who brought children into the world, outside of marriage, did something very, very wrong. People with illegitimate children were not told that it was a “minor mistake of youth.” It isn’t a minor mistake of youth, it is a mistake that reverberates across the generations and damages the unwed parents, the children and society. The black population in America has less than 30% of its children born into wedlock. Young black males have the higher crime rate and incarceration rate in America because they grow up without fathers to discipline them. They grow up without fathers because we have mainstreamed illegitimacy and handed out false compassion. When the older sister becomes pregnant, society accommodates the event and those who protest are criticized. The younger sister coming up knows full well that society will accomodate her future pregnancy.
It was unfair to expell the pregnant girls, but, it WAS CORRECT to remove them from the normal school population. Pregnant girls and their partners should be removed from the mainstream public schools. Provisions should be made to complete their education in educational institutions devoted to problem students. Young people coming into school should not see unwed pregnancy mainstreamed.
Yes, Dean, social shame was very effective, getting rid of social shame has doomed the black population of America and a good share of the white population. It IS that simple. However, abolishing legitimate shame has generated many jobs for social workers.
Good points Missourian. Today the scolding and moralizing comes from other direction.
Note 5: Missourian, how would you recommend we bring back “shaming” towards those who fail in the sexual arena? If a female relative has a child out of wedlock, for example, should we:
a) glare at her in a very obvious manner?
b) refuse to invite her to our family social gatherings and potlucks?
c) whisper things like “tramp!” as she walks past?
d) throw a small rock at her?
Perhaps these are the typical Christian responses from the Right, I don’t know. Hey, Alan Keyes disowned his own daughter. It does seem to be the area within ethics that the Right raises the biggest stink about, maybe because it’s an embarrassing issue to them.
I’m hardly suggesting that we encourage irresponsible behavior by “cleaning up their mess” so to speak. I certainly wouldn’t expect “grandma” to raise the child. The girl must take responsibility. I’m simply suggesting that simply making her take responsibility is often a more fitting “punishment” than making the girl feel like a whore and ostracizing her.
Dean Scroutas wrote: “Some level of government intervention and support is required to address poverty. You can’t have strong families when both parents have to work long hours at low wages and still struggle to pay for basic necessities.”
So what is your solution, raise taxes to pay for it placing an economic burden on more people?
Or would it be better to find ways to reduce costs?
Adding another tax burden will not help improve health care for everyone. It will in the end reduce care for everyone creating another bureaucratic agency that will determine what is or isn’t necessary care. Can you imagine that same people who run the DMV, or social security, deciding if you need surgery or not?
You might want to re-evaluate your assumption about two incomes, low wages to meet basic necessities. The problem isn’t the low wages it’s in the mindset of consumerism. Many American’s, regardless of what economic level, overspend to purchase “things”. Many times income is being spent on niceties that are mistaken as necessities. Some families could do better if they reduced their spending on such items as cellphones, cable/satellite television, etc. and focused more on savings to meet future needs. It’s spending to meet gratification first rather than necessities.
The solution is not another tax burden.
What has the parent of that hungry child been doing?
That child is hungry because its mother spent the welfare check on drugs and the father can’t be found. The child is NOT hungry because society didn’t provide emergency or long-term food assistance. Billions have been spent on those services. The child is hungry because his parents are not fit to care for children.
The parents of that neglected child are probably unmarried. The mother is unemployed and spent the welfare check on drugs.
The father can’t be found. How do I know these harsh things are true? I worked for the Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services/Child Protection Division for a mid-western state. I know ALL ABOUT removing children from the homes of neglectful parents.
We should investigate and intervene when any child comes to school who is mistreated, neglected or hungry.
When a teacher finds children who have been badly neglected, the government should intervene and remove the child from the home. The
interests of children and society should be placed ahead of those of the abusive and neglectful parent.
Parental rights should be terminated more quickly, within one or two years of initial discovery of abuse, not the current 5 or 6.
Children should be placed in foster homes, or, we should build orphanages to rescue these kids from the dysfunctional inner city.
I believe that many children did well in orphanages, Father Flanagan’s comes to mind.
Society should end the “mainstreaming” of casual sex and unwed parenthood. Unwed parents should be sent to separate reform schools.
Society should control our borders and control the flow of drugs. Children using drugs should also be removed from the mainstream
school to protect the welfare of the well adjusted children. Drug using children should be sent to a reform school. Adult drug
users should be prosecuted and jailed for long terms.
Performers such as Snoop Dog should have their work rated X and X rated material should be withheld from minors. Snoop Dog
can ply his trade to the adults.
Schools should take control of students and direct them in proper behavior, this is particularly important for children coming
from lax homes. School should institute dress codes and should exert a strong parental control over social contact between
boys and girls.
Note 7 Shaming as Social Control
JamesK, what you don’t really appreciate is that as recently as the late 1960’s, unwed motherhood was considered shameful. Unwed motherhood was a mark of low social status and less than 10% of white children were born out-of-wedlock. This state of affairs had been maintained for literally hundreds of years in America. This low rate of illegitimacy was primarily achieved through SOCIAL SHAMING. Social shaming is the tool that has been used by civilized societies throughout history to ensure that children are only born into homes that a mother and a father.
Here is how we bring back shaming.
If an unwed female students becomes pregnant, the school or state should track down the father. The unwed female student should be REMOVED from regular school and sent to a special school, a reform school. The unwed mother should continue her education and should receive some training in being a parent. The unwed father should also be REMOVED from regular school and sent to a special school, a reform school. the unwed father should not be excused from the duty of supporting the child. These youngsters should not be told that its acceptable to become pregnant out-of-wedlock.
We should not have pregnant girls “mainstreamed” into school as “normal.”
Being pregnant is not a sin.
Sex Outside of Marriage is a Sin:
Sex outside of marriage is a sin.
It is a sin to put one’s own selfish, fleeting sexual gratification BEFORE the welfare of an innocent
child who will be permanently handicapped by growing up without father.
IT is sin to put one’s own selfish, short-term sexual gratification BEFORE the welfare of an innocent
child who will be disadvantaged by being brought up by ANOTHER CHILD rather than a mature adult.
IT is a sin to put one’s own selfish, fleeting sexual gratification BEFORE the welfare of an innocent
child who will in all liklihood suffer material want because his parents are not prepared to
earn a living and create a proper home.
If the mother was raped then the perpetrator should be prosecuted, rapes are rare and they don’t
account for a 60% illegitimacy rate for black children.
The hungry child showing up at school is, in all liklihood, the child of an unwed mother who is
unemployed and possibly drug addicted. We should change our laws to allow us to immediately
remove that child from the home and place him somewhere where he will be cared for. Foster homes
if possible, orphanages if necessary.
If a 60% illegitimacy rate doesn’t rouse to you action, nothing will.
We are no desenstized to the damage caused by sex outside marriage that we accept a 60% illegtimacy rate for black youngsters. Black youngsters drop out of high school at a rate of about 50%, this is a scandal. Few black boys grow up with a father. A very high percentage of young black men are in prison. Where do you think this all starts? OUR ACCEPTANCE, OUR ENABLING, OUR TRIVIALIZING, OUR CONDONING pre-marital sex. That is where it all starts. College scholarships are worthless for a teenager with an infant to care for.
Query, was your father important to you? Was your father optional? Mine wasn’t.
Illegitimate children are born one child at a time, to one teenager at a time. That teenager has never been taught that sex outside marriage is a sin, or that it is a bad thing to be an unwed mother. At the time she entered high school unwed mothers were everywhere taking classs right along with her. They shouldn’t be, neither should the boys or men that fathered these children.
Priorities:
We have changed priorities, by law in some cases. We need to change them back.
Dysfunctional parent/innocent child. The law has made it more difficult to sever the parental rights of dysfunctional parents. It can take six years. I was employed by the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services/Child Protection Division for several years. I know exactly what it takes to get a child away from a criminal parent, a drug-addicted parent, an abusive parent.While the court case drags on, the child’s life is nearly always permanently damaged. Rescue the innocent first, then tend to the parent.
Dysfunctinal student/good students. The law has made removing dysfunctional students or violent students from classrooms far more difficult than it was in the 1950’s. As a result the teacher loses control of the classroom and the quality of education for everyone is degraded. Remove the disruptive student, restore order and then tend to the disruptive student.
Criminal/victims. We need to care for the victims of crime first, then tend to the criminals. We need to deport the criminal aliens taking up our jail space then we need to jail the criminals. After the victims are cared for, and after the criminals are in jailed, we can work on rehabilitating them. Many people may be beyond rehabilitation, in which case, the interest of the law-biding should be put first.
Missourian, I support making people take responsibility for their actions. I’m not for making a difficult situation worse by shoving peoples’ faces in their own mess as you would an un-housebroken puppy. Encourage morality if you wish. Once the deed’s done, however, there are no “takesy-backsies”. Go on and make the best of it. Surely you jest about putting someone in reform school for having a child out of wedlock. Really, do we have enough jails? What if they conceived during an engagement period? Does that count?
By the way, you have an odd idea of who exactly makes up this population of “unmarried parents”. You seem to have this mental image of crack houses and rapsters. That may be partially true, but there are scores of “respectable” professional (and white!) couples who choose to have children without obtaining a marriage license.
I don’t know. I guess I don’t find life to have these easy answers. Taking a child away from its mother may be the right answer in some situations. It may not in others. You are aware that child sexual abuse does in fact occur in “traditional” households, correct (i.e., with a mother and father present)?
Liberals did not create the current problems with marriage.
“For people of European origin in colonial America, marriage was an act of practicality. Although a respectful love was supposed to develop in the course of the union, neither sexual attraction nor romantic love was the basis for wedlock. Marriage, as in England, was a form of alliance between families, stemming from considerations of property, religion, and complementary abilities. The fathers of the couple had the legal right to give or withhold consent, and they frequently entered into economic negotiations before the engagement was formally concluded. The bride usually brought with her a dowry of household goods, clothing, and money; the groom provided land, house, and tools. Marriage, in the tradition of English law, subsumed the legal being of the wife into that of the husband. Under this system, called coverture, when a woman married she lost her right to own property or enter into contracts.
In seventeenth-century New England, marriage took place and endured in a tight network of family and community control. It was a central institution in a society that defined the family as a major source of stability and order. But in the Chesapeake region, marriages were highly unstable. In the first generation of settlement, there were approximately four men to every woman in contrast to the New England ratio of three to two. As a result, it was difficult for men to marry and form families. Both illegitimacy rates and rates of premarital intercourse were highâ??approximately one-third of all women were pregnant when they wed, compared to about one-tenth of women in New England. This rate reflected the looser family and community controls in the South and the weaker status of religion, but the shortage of women may also have been a factor: chastity was a less important qualification for marriage when there were fewer women. An extremely high death rate was another cause of marital instability. About half of all marriages were broken by the death of one of the partners within seven years.
By the mid-eighteenth century, marriage had come to be based increasingly on love and affection. Married couples now referred to each other by first names or terms of endearment in their correspondence, replacing the impersonal “Sir” and “Madam” of the previous era. This trend intensified steadily, and by the nineteenth century the sentimental doctrines of romantic love had come to prevail. Nonetheless, Victorian marriages demanded strict fulfillment of gender-specific roles that were centered around family responsibilities and were based far more on ideals of duty than on self-fulfillment.”
Missourian, these problems you’re seeing did not start in the 60s, they simply came to a head then, if you will. People simply no longer marry for the reasons they did back in 1800 (an era you seem to romanticize a little too much). This is good or bad depending on your priorities. I’m also not that certain that infidelity wasn’t common in colonial America. They men just kept it a secret, and the wives just kept their mouths shut.
Note 13 Paragraph One. Negative but not Cruel
JamesK writes:
Missourian, I support making people take responsibility for their actions. I’m not for making a difficult situation worse by shoving peoples’ faces in their own mess as you would an un-housebroken puppy. Encourage morality if you wish. Once the deed’s done, however, there are no “takesy-backsies”. Go on and make the best of it. Surely you jest about putting someone in reform school for having a child out of wedlock. Really, do we have enough jails? What if they conceived during an engagement period? Does that count?
**********************************************************************************************************
Your comment does not rise to the level of serious discourse on this topic. The topic addressed was society’s response to unwed parenthood. My observation, unchallenged by anyone here, is that as a whole American society has “mainstreamed” unwed parenthood. I suggest that we STOP mainstreaming destructive behavior and label destructive behavior for exactly what is is. WRONG.
Yes, I do suggest that we take the unwed parents out of standard school and put them in a special school established for problem students. By failing to take this minimum of all possible steps, we are sending a clear message to younger students coming up that “nothing really happens” to people who become unwed parents. Something very distinct should happen. After the students have been transferred to reform school they should complete their standard education. They should also be get instruction in parenting and the father should be required to financially support the child. If further post-secondary education can be arranged, that will be fine. But, unwed parenthood SHOULD ILLICIT a response from society and that response should NOT BE CRUEL but it should be NEGATIVE.
Note 13 Para 2 First hand knowledge of child neglect and abuse
JamesK writes:
By the way, you have an odd idea of who exactly makes up this population of “unmarried parents”. You seem to have this mental image of crack houses and rapsters. That may be partially true, but there are scores of “respectable” professional (and white!) couples who choose to have children without obtaining a marriage license.
Missourian replies: First, my posts only addressed MINORS, specifically those attending public schools. The discussion was about the policies of public schools with respect to unwed parenthood. The point of my posts was that we have spent 60 years mainstreaming unwed parenthood only to see illegitimacy rise from 10% to 60% in the black population and from 10% to 30% in the white population.
As to my knowledge base, I would like to inform you again, that I worked for the Child Protection Division of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. I assisted in the legal prosecution of child abuse cases. As a a lawyer for the Department I worked directly with the social workers who were sent out to rescue abused and neglected children. Those social workers visited the “homes” of the children and interviewed the “parents” of the children. I have DIRECT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the population of abused and neglected children. I have DIRECT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE prosecuting child abusers and child neglectors. What is your knowledge base?
Note 13 Paragraph 3
JamesK writes: I don’t know. I guess I don’t find life to have these easy answers. Taking a child away from its mother may be the right answer in some situations. It may not in others. You are aware that child sexual abuse does in fact occur in “traditional” households, correct (i.e., with a mother and father present)?
Missourian: I dont’ find life to have easy answer either. There is nothing easy about the answers I propose. What is EASY about standing up and in a dissolute society stating that destructive behavior should not be condoned, enabled, ignored or mainstreamed. The answers that I have proposed are, at least, answers. They are not frivolous suggestions as they are a return to policies that worked in the past, that worked not just for decades but for centuries. Again, I have extensive professional experience prosecuting child abuse and child neglect.
You have proposed NO answers. You have cast your lot with the normalization of unwed parenthood. You have cast your lot with the standarization of illegitimacy rates in the range of 60%. You have closed you eyes to the plight of millions of black male teenagers growing up without an example of a responsible male adult in the home.
You do nothing but scoff at the idea that anyone should actually be held accountable for their behavior. Why, we couldn’t build a reform school? We couldn’t actually enforce a policy? We couldn’t, gasp, actually impose a penalty for destructive behavior? Sure, we can, we have in the past and we can in the future. We can return to the days when 90% of all children were born to a mother and a father. It was that way for centuries. Human nature hasn’t changed during that time. We are the same species. I have proposed NOTHING CRUEL but I have proposed that we reward students who avoid unwed parenthood and we express very clear disapproval for those who are unwed parents. Unwed parents should experience a negative but not CRUEL social response. Unwed students should be encouraged to contineu their studies and if they do well they should receive scholastic honors, but, they should not be eligible for social honors and they shouldn’t be chosen a student leaders. They should forfeit something as a result of their destructive behavior and they shouldn’t be given the same honors as responsible students.
Your’s is the false kindness and false compassion that allows young lives to drift into disaster and multi-generational poverty.
Note 13 My answers are not easy.
JamesK I don’t know. I guess I don’t find life to have these easy answers. Taking a child away from its mother may be the right answer in some situations. It may not in others. You are aware that child sexual abuse does in fact occur in “traditional” households, correct (i.e., with a mother and father present)?
Missourian replies: No, JamesK, my answers are not EASY. It is your position which is EASY. I propose that adults stand up and take charge of children in public schools. I propose that society firmly and uniformly rejects unwed parenthood as immoral and destructive. I propose taking action that requires leaders with backbone.
There is simply nothing wrong with sending unwed parents to reform school. They should not enjoy the freedom and privilege of responsible students in our high schools. Once in the reform school they can continue their studies. If they do well academically, they should be recognized for academic achievement. Thier destructive behavior should cause them to lose the optional social privileges of being “Student of the Year” or Student President or officers in the clubs in their original high school. Society needs to differentiate between responsibile and irresponsible students. Nothing I have proposed is CRUEL.
Your cruelty is deeper. Your unwillingness to condemn destructive behavior only allows unwed parenthood to be mainstreamed. Young boys and girls coming up from grade school and junior high will observe all of the pregnant unwed mothers going walking around the campus and they will correctly conclude that unwed parenthood is NO BIG DEAL. It is a BIG DEAL. It requires a negative but not cruel response.
Yours is the false compassion that condones and enables a 60% illegtimacy rate among black children. You don’t really care and you don’t really think that these children deserve to grow up with a responsible mother and responsible parent.
Note, I suggested that we remove children from abusive and neglectful parents within 1 year rather than the standard 5 to 6 years. This is based on actual experience. I did not suggest that we remove a child from a parent SOLELY due to the fact that the child was born out of wedlock.
“Sex outside of marriage is a sin.” John Calvin understood this and decided that killing pregnant girls was the way to go. (A bruised reed He will not break, and a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish.” Isaiah 42:3)
Drowning, shunning, scarlet letters? I think I’ll try to spread the word that sex outside of marriage is indeed wrong and has serious consequences. But pointing them to the love and forgiveness of God seems to do more for all concerned than deriding them into despondency and making an example of them.
This is not Calvin’s Geneva.
Missourian, what you propose is not only that people pay for their mistakes, but they pay for them over and over and over again for the rest of their lives. As I said, I have no qualms with ensuring that people own up to their responsibilities (meaning enforce financial liabilities against them for support where necessary). Do we need to grind their faces in the mud while we’re at it? Perhaps a scarlet letter?
It’s not about glamorizing illegitimacy. It’s about not increasing the likelihood of perpetuating a destructive cycle for the rest of someone’s life. You send some teenage girl to a place like this, and I can assure you that when she gets out, getting pregnant again will be the least of her problems that society has to contend with. If we’re lucky, she’ll have acquired just a crystal meth addiction and not a violent streak as well.
The question to ask when dealing with any individual is:
a) what actions can we take to remedy the existing situation
b) what can be done to reduce the likelihood that this problem will resurface
I don’t see how a blanket response of “sending them to reform school” is an answer. But then again, most conservatives don’t believe in the existence of the individual. They believe in “groups”, apparently. Whatever the group is (immigrants, gays, liberals, etc. etc.), there’s always a handy generic “answer” as to how to most effectively deal with them.
Note 17 Nonsense
Lloyd writes:
Sex outside of marriage is a sin.” John Calvin understood this and decided that killing pregnant girls was the way to go. (A bruised reed He will not break, and a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish.” Isaiah 42:3)Drowning, shunning, scarlet letters? I think I’ll try to spread the word that sex outside of marriage is indeed wrong and has serious consequences. But pointing them to the love and forgiveness of God seems to do more for all concerned than deriding them into despondency and making an example of them. This is not Calvin’s Geneva.
Missourian responds: You know as well as I do that I never suggested “killing pregnant girls” or “drowning, shunning or scarlet letters.” This part of your comment does not rise to the level of serious discourse.
I proposed that society adopt a clear policy for public high school students. The policy is that unwed parenthood is wrong and immoral and it will not be condoned or mainstreamed. It is important to remove unwed parents from standard public schools so that unwed pregnancy is NOT mainstreamed and so that those children get extra attention. It is entirely appropriate that they lose some of the “frosting on the cake” of their high school experience. Something should happen. Somebody should intervene in a definitive way to prevent that second unwed pregnancy, because, believe me Lloyd, that second pregnancy is just down the road.
As a personal matter, or perhaps as a pastoral matter, I think that is is fine to point unwed parents to the love and foregivness of God. The population that I am talking about hasn’t been brought to Church by their parents and they wouldn’t know what you were talking about. They don’t think they need forgiveness. They aren’t despondent.Unwed parenthood IS THE NORM and they would tell you that you had no right to criticize them. They would tell you that they don’t think that they did anything wrong, or, if they did, it was only a small matter, not very important.
I think the bruised reed reference to Emmanual (anyway that is what I was taught) I don’t think that we interpret that as disposing with all rules and regulations in society which reward responsible conduct and punish irresponsible conduct. Remember the Bible teaches that the imaginings of the human mind is frequenlty evil.
Raise Up a Child in the Way that He Should Go
Are we doing this? Notice, I will lose any Bible quoting duel I engage in but I remembered that one, I think it applies here.
At no point have I suggested that we abandon wrongdoers. I just suggested that we get our priorities straight.
Again, my priorities place the child’s welfare first over the sexual license of the teenager. Establish the principle of immorality of unwed pregnancy then work with the unwed parents to help them finish their education. We might actually stop a second pregnancy.
Place the welfare of the victim above the criminal. Take care of the victim,first, then the criminal and don’t further insult the victim by telling the criminal that his act was not a crime. Rehabilitate? Sure, but after recognition that a crime has been committed and a person or society was injured.
Moving a child from the general school population is not cruel, something very concrete has to happend as a result of unwed pregnancy it just can’t be live as ususal.
Raise up a child in the way that he should go
Are we raising up our children in the way they should go? If 60% of black children are illegitimate and grow up without fathers, what do you propose? If we do nothing, this continues.
Lloyd, come to court with me on my next juvenile case and take a look at the neglected babies.
From time to time I am required to work on a juvenile law case. The typical case arises because of the extreme neglect of a small child by a teenage parent. The teenage parent is typically 14, 15 or 16. Some of them are as young as 13. It is not unusual for these girls to have 2 or 3 children before they are 20.It is not unusual for each child to have a different father. Of course, at this point, the family is a disaster. The parents can’t support themselves let along their children. These youngsters have never encountered the idea that unwed parenthood is anything but standard.
There hasn’t been any pastoral intervention pointing them towards the love and forgiveness of God because they don’t think have done anything needing forgiveness. Maybe if someone had paid attention after the first unwed pregnancy and intervened and redirected these youngsters (both the mother and the father) there might not have been a second and third pregnancy. Society doesn’t intervene, we condone and enable and mainstream the behavior.
Lloyd I just don’t think you are in touch with what is going on out there. I am and I am being excoriated because I actually propose a policy to address the matter.
Raise up a child in the way that he should go
Are we raising up our children in the way they should go? If 60% of black children are illegitimate and grow up without fathers, what do you propose? If we do nothing, this continues. I propose a policy and I am excoriated for it.
Lloyd, come to court with me on my next juvenile case and take a look at the neglected babies. These children have nearly no chance to get started right in life. If I have to choose I would choose to discomfit the parents JUST A TEENSY, WEENSY BIT rather than perpetuate the miserable life of the children involved.
From time to time I am required to work on a juvenile law case. The typical case arises because of the extreme neglect of a small child by a teenage parent. The teenage parent is typically 14, 15 or 16. Some of them are as young as 13. It is not unusual for these girls to have 2 or 3 children before they are 20.It is not unusual for each child to have a different father. Of course, at this point, the family is a disaster. The parents can’t support themselves let along their children. These youngsters have never encountered the idea that unwed parenthood is anything but standard.
There hasn’t been any pastoral intervention pointing them towards the love and forgiveness of God because they don’t think they have done anything needing forgiveness. Maybe if someone had paid attention after the first unwed pregnancy and intervened and redirected these youngsters (both the mother and the father) there might not have been a second and third pregnancy.
Lloyd I just don’t think you are in touch with what is going on out there.
Note 18 Missourian, Let’s think about this.
First of all, my reference to “drowning,shunning and scarlet letters” was obviously metaphor. No sane person would use them otherwise.
I’m not suggesting that we should not speak out against these things. But we cannot put the toothpaste back into the tube. Unwed parenthood has already become “condoned and mainstreamed”. Our response to it must recognize this fact and reflect the Gospel without resorting to culturally anachronistic solutions that would have little chance of being implemented.
Perhaps I’m not a good person to have this discussion with because my own kids are multicultural, adopted and were born out of wedlock.
Here’s how it works. (For the record, I’m the priest who gives the “sex talk” as we priests call it at summer camp.)
First you have to break through the assumptions. Teens breath the air of the sexualized youth culture and many are thorougly indoctrinated with the arguments that sex is fine if two people “love” each other. Of course, “love” means whatever they think it means. In their heart they know something much different, but in order for this deeper knowledge to emerge, the assumptions need to be challenged first.
I’ve found the best method is to confront the ideas directly. Come right out and say sex outside of marriage is a sin. Push it. Compell a response. Two or three hours of contentious discussion can take place. You will talk about everything, ie: homosexuality, oral sex, anal sex, everything that the popular media — especially the teen media — talks about.
They’ve heard all the STD info, but it does not hit home unless they have experienced it first hand. From the day they were born, the popular media has told them two things: 1) sex is a way to find and seal “love”; and 2) sexual intimacy has no emotional consequences. Don’t underestimate this. A promiscuous culture is all they know. (If you don’t know how bad it is, go to the teen section at Barnes and Noble, pick up the magazines marketed to teen girls, and read the advice sections. You have teens giving advice to other teens about all manner of sexual activity.)
After two or three hours of argumentation, they will start to listen. It is very rare for them to hear an adult who is consistent on the morality of sex and can respond to the challenges. They welcome the challenge and in the end will respect the challenger but only if you allow them to challenge you will everything they’ve got.
Then the real work begins. The truth is that teens want to be morally clean. Sexual relations are often emotionally traumatic for teens, but the trauma is internalized as a failing since most are still too emotionally immature to recognize they have been sold a lie. In fact, promiscuity often emerges out of this sense of failure which is experienced as a lowered self-respect, depression, fear of pregnancy (many teens don’t use condoms), fear of disease (disease awareness kicks in after sexual activity), possible sullying of reputations (particularly among girls). etc.
The healing comes during formal, sacramental, confession. The priests know that confessions of sexual sins will come after the talks. Consequently we schedule them for older teens at the end of the week. The change you seen in them can be remarkable for some. It cleanses the soul, heals the memories, and restores the person. It offers them a second chance and many of them take it.
————-
Note 17. I’m sure Geneva was a dour place, but killing women for becoming pregnant outside of marriage is something I have never hear before. Are you sure it is true?
Note 19 Lloyd, O.K. Invitation accepted
Lloyd, you asked me to “think,” fine, invitation accepted. Here is your post No. 19
First of all, my reference to “drowning,shunning and scarlet letters” was obviously metaphor. No sane person would use them otherwise.
I’m not suggesting that we should not speak out against these things. But we cannot put the toothpaste back into the tube. Unwed parenthood has already become “condoned and mainstreamed”. Our response to it must recognize this fact and reflect the Gospel without resorting to culturally anachronistic solutions that would have little chance of being implemented.
Perhaps I’m not a good person to have this discussion with because my own kids are multicultural, adopted and were born out of wedlock.
**********************************************************************************************************
First Paragraph: Your reference to Calvin in Note 17 was NOT a metaphor. Here is the definition of metaphor from Websters on line: A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in â??a sea of troublesâ?? or â??All the world’s a stageâ?? (Shakespeare). It WAS your intention to directly compare my position to Calvin and imply that I was heartless and cruel. There is no other rational meaning of post no. 17. You most decidedly DID NOT use metaphor. You clearly accused me of extreme cruelty in contrast with your own holiness. Those are the words you used you should stand responsible for them.
Second paragraph. The entire import of your second paragraph is that YOU have given up, and as YOU have given up YOU don’t want to be bothered with anyone who HASN’T GIVEN UP. Everything in this world is subject to change. We can change and control our society is we develop the political will. In the end your real position is that you don’t want to be bothered. You are content with things going along as are. Funny, a few posts ago you were taking the position of HIGHER HOLINESS AND CHARITY when in fact you are JUST NOT WILLING TO ENGAGE THE CULTURE BECAUSE IT IS TOO TAXING.
Third paragraph: This paragraph is truly insulting. If you have read my previous posts, you would not that I served as an attorney in the prosecution of child abuse and neglect. I argued FOR the REMOVAL of abused children from negligent parents. It those children were removed and parental rights were severed those children had a change at adoption. JUST LIKE YOUR CHILDREN. Yet, I have been treated like the very devil incarnate when I propose that we do something about negligent parents.
I think it is truly insulting for you to suggest that since you are an adoptive parent of what are probably multi-racial children, you have somehow a more tender heart for the matter. It is exactly those children that motivate my concern. It could well have been an attorney just like me that made those children available for adoption.
Your use of language has been shown to be sloppy. You have had the arrogance to compare me to Calvin then deny that you did that. You have approached me from FALSE position of higher piety. You are just someone who doesn’t want to be bothered with the fight anymore. Well, I am not. You haven’t raise ONE SINGLE
COGENT CRITIQUE of anything that I have written.
Teenage Girls and Social Pressure
There are many teenage girls who would like to be free of the social pressure to be overtly sexual and to be sexually active. Many high schools adminstrators and teachers allow an unhealthy teen subculture to dominate life at school. Worries about dates, clothes, drinking or not drinking, and sexual activities occupy a great deal of the youngsters time and energy. Many girls do want to wait until marriage and are reasonably afraid of STD’s or unplanned pregnancies and interrupted schooling. It is really difficult for them. Support for their position from the school and from adults would be a great help.
I can’t speak for the boys as I am not in contact with them. Surely some feel the same way. The unhealthy youth culture can be overwhelming.
My words apparently arrived on your screen with a message very different than the one I typed into my keyboard. You are ascribing things to my words that are not true. My apologies for my inability to express myself properly. I meant no offense.
Note 28: “I’m sure Geneva was a dour place, but killing women for becoming pregnant outside of marriage is something I have never hear before. Are you sure it is true?”
William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire, pp. 190-193
Calvin’s statements concerning the execution of adulterers, etc. have been documented in the book:
Adultery and Divorce in Calvin’s Geneva by Robert Kingdon
But I don’t really grasp Lloyd’s purpose in bringing up Calvin in a website dedicated to Orthodoxy? To throw out Calvin’s name and what he did in this context is a red herring argument. It has no basis because no one is arguing for a Geneva in America today.
The purpose of shame is to show disapproval for behavior that is destructive for the individual and toward society.
We’ve lost the concept of shame — or dishonor and disgrace — as a society. Especially, when parents find it necessary to sue schools to force school officials to allow their unwed, pregnant daughter to continue to participate in cheerleading squads. Or we honor people who achieve celebrity status by prostituting themselves to powerful people.
We now celebrate the monstrous, the depraved concepts that brought down past civlizations and wonder why our society is falling apart.
Don’t misunderstand my intention here. I’m not trying to put you on the spot. The thing about William Manchester is that he is more of a popular than professional historian. Does he give a citation? I’ve read a lot of Reformation history and I don’t recall coming across this.
Paying for them over and over OR getting pregnant over and over
JamesK writes
Missourian, what you propose is not only that people pay for their mistakes, but they pay for them over and over and over again for the rest of their lives. As I said, I have no qualms with ensuring that people own up to their responsibilities (meaning enforce financial liabilities against them for support where necessary). Do we need to grind their faces in the mud while we’re at it? Perhaps a scarlet letter?
Missourian: Again with the scarlet letter. I proposed something simple. A reform school, yes, plain language. The idea is that students who engaged in destructive or disruptive behavior be removed from standard schools. This protects the responsibile, non-disruptive students and maintains a good educational atmosphere. Since we have a duty to these students I proposed sending them to a school, a reform school, but a school. I pointed out that they should be rewarded for scholastic achievement but that some extra-curricular privileges should be curtailed. This would last for at most a couple of years until they graduate. I also stated that they should benefit from parenting classes. This is in noway “paying for their mistakes over and over.” Their mistake has a consequence that LASTS a LIFE TIME. It is clear that you really don’t give any weight to that idea. All you can see is what is to YOU, trivial conduct. I can see the child: the infant, the toddler, the little boy and the full grown man. You don’t even take the consequences of the actions of the parent on that child’s life into account. Sending these kids to a different school could prevent a second pregnancy. Second and third pregnancies are common and we are all paying for them.
JAMES I WRITES: It’s not about glamorizing illegitimacy. It’s about not increasing the likelihood of perpetuating a destructive cycle for the rest of someone’s life. You send some teenage girl to a place like this, and I can assure you that when she gets out, getting pregnant again will be the least of her problems that society has to contend with. If we’re lucky, she’ll have acquired just a crystal meth addiction and not a violent streak as well.
The question to ask when dealing with any individual is:
a) what actions can we take to remedy the existing situation
b) what can be done to reduce the likelihood that this problem will resurface
Missorian replies: It may not be about glamorizing illegitimacy BUT it IS about MAINSTREAMING illegtimacy. Nothing about my proposal “increased the liklihood of a perpetuating a destructive cycle.” I proposed a school much like the schools we already have, conducted in school buidings we already have. Most communities have what they call “alternative” schools, I was just more direct in my language. I was NOT proposing sending someone to a “youth facility” or a prison. You will note that you have NOT proposed any policy whatsoever. You ask “what action can we take.” Here’s an action. Remove unwed parents from the general population to avoid mainstreaming them. Send them to a school where they are rewarded for scholastics and taught to be parents. Make something happen. You have proposed a GREAT BIG NOTHING.
James K: I don’t see how a blanket response of “sending them to reform school” is an answer. But then again, most conservatives don’t believe in the existence of the individual. They believe in “groups”, apparently. Whatever the group is (immigrants, gays, liberals, etc. etc.), there’s always a handy generic “answer” as to how to most effectively deal with them.
Missourian: Here is how a “blanket” response of sending them all to reform schoo IS an answer. All of the people in question are unwed teenage parents. The behavior which is being addressed is self-destructive conduct that results in unwed parenthood. This similarity is sufficient. Removing them from school sends a message to all involved that this conduct is taken seriously. They have enough in common to be sent to the same school. Education would continue and the students would probably be given more supervision and a higher teacher/student ratio. It is perfectly reasonable to treat them as a group. Counselors at the reform school can tailor individual programs once the children are assigned to the reform school. I am simply proposing different schools for destructive and disruptive students to protect the educational atmosphere of the standard schools. If these people all belong to a “grou;” it is the result of their voluntary conduct. Society has a right to respond to the destructive voluntary conduct of its members.
As to treating people like members of a group, it is the CULTURAL LEFT that is pushing identity politics, Not the reliigous, political or cultural right. America is a individualistic society and it is the cultural right that is defending that heritage. It is the cultural left that is pushing Balkanizing group politics.
JamesK, I don’t think that you understand the schools, government and countries have to be govered by consistent rules that apply to all people similarly situated, it is called the “rule of law” and it is one of the highest achievements of civilization.
You have never been willing to enforce any rule for any reason. You can’t bring yourself to close our borders. You can’t bring yourself to propose a clear policy discouraging unwed pregnancies. Societies can and do fall apart without structure. In democratic countriers, we citizens debate the nature of laws, then approve them , then live by them.
Teens are brutalized by the sex culture, but the responsibility rests with the adults. Adults don’t want to give up their fornications and adulteries, so they create a culture where criticism of licentiousness is taboo. Add to this the tremendous commerce associatied with the marketing of sex (porn, elevation of the whore as hero in teen pop culture, mainstream television, advertising, etc.), and great harm is done to children who, quite naturally, trust what adults tell them. But, when the inevitable happens, we can shuttle the teens off to Planned Parenthood for a quick visit, and their parents don’t even have to know. Isn’t sexual liberation great?
Note 32. I did a quick Google search, which proves nothing conclusively of course, but noticed that only Kingdon’s book was cited on the pages critical of Calvin and the capital punishment of adulterers.
The impression left is that Calvin routinely supported the capital punishment of adulterers, and pregnant unmarried women. Maybe the impression is wrong even if Geneva executed some adulterers. I’m no friend of Calvin, but the charges are so grave that I want to make sure they are substantiated before we believe them.
Note 35. Three years ago I worked with a teen on drugs. Teens, any person actually, who are drug addicted with tell you anything they think you want to hear. Nothing worked, as I knew it wouldn’t, until something drastic took place.
That drastic action was pulling him out of regular high school, and placing him in a reform school for teens with drug and alcohol problems. It was tough for the kid. He was humiliated at first. He was forced to confront his problems. The staff required discipline and obedience from the students.
Guess what. It worked. He’s a junior now, has been off drugs for three years, has a B+ average, and wants to study business. Thank God and the school administration for their no tolerance policy. Their discipline, the counseling he received, the support of his parents and others, made the turn-around possible.
Note 35:”Most communities have what they call “alternative” schools, I was just more direct in my language. I was NOT proposing sending someone to a “youth facility” or a prison.”
I was not aware that there was a difference. I have no problems with sending someone to a school better suited to their situation. I have serious issues with sending them in with a bunch of other kids who have more severe drug and criminal behavioral problems.
By the way, you do realize that the “harder” the punishment we dole out to these kids, the more likely they are to respond upon hearing they’re pregnant with an abortion (at least it would seem reasonable to assume this).
The law does not make anyone good. It can only make people suffer when they’re bad. Missourian, perhaps you’re used to dealing with a segment of society that is only motivated by fear of punishment (and oftentimes not successfully at that). To this extent, I must plead a degree of ignorance. That’s simply outside of my realm, and perhaps I should not speak about things outside my knowledge base. I’m also not saying be a Pollyanna and live in a society with no laws.
I’m simply suggesting that hanging a sword of Damocles over people’s heads is, in my experience, not a very effective motivator towards encouraging good behavior or a healthy relationship. I have seen people pick themselves up out of unhealthy lifestyles not with punishment but with encouragement and kindness. But what do I know.
Note 27, Lloyd said: “Unwed parenthood has already become “condoned and mainstreamed”. Our response to it must recognize this fact and reflect the Gospel without resorting to culturally anachronistic solutions that would have little chance of being implemented.”
The solution is simple, but it takes courage: People need to publicly and emphatically say that unwed parenthood is bad. Conjuring up visions of “anachronistic solutions” to justify the destructive practice of children having children is also bad, in my opinion. To ignore the practice, either from lack of attention, or from saccharine non-judgmentalism, or from being intimidated, is to condone it. And to go on about what John Calvin or the Puritans did or did not do is to encourage others to ignore it. The issue is not public policy, it is public opinion.
The reason that illegitimacy has become “condoned and mainstreamed” is that a relatively small number of politically active people have stood ready to shame anyone who criticizes it. As destructive social practices become comonplace, people are told that we must be tolerant of change — or even better, agents of it. When people finally notice the damage the change has done and want to reverse it, they are told it is “culturally anachronistic,” like “putting toothpast back into the tube,” and has “little chance of being implemented.”
Here’s what’s going on: People who reaaly know better are intimidated from saying that it is bad to have children outside the bounds of marriage. The correct answer to this intimidateion is not a matter of implementing ponderous solutions. It is a matter of people finding courage in their conventional morality and speaking their common sense.
A good start on the individual level is to recognize the morally neutral, politically correct speech to which one has become accustomed — actually I should say to which one has been trained — and to toss it out.
Note 40JamesK Pleading Ignorance Is Appropriate
JamesK observes “Law does not make anyone good:” TRUE but LAW DOES SHAPE AND DIRECT CONDUCT. You need to distinguish between a public policy, embodied in law and administered by school officials and the response of the Church. The legal system is NOT a substitute for pastoral counseling or religious education, it is PUBLIC POLICY. It is not the goal of law to MAKE PEOPLE GOOD, it is the goal of law to control destructive conduct. CAPICE?
JamesK, your true objection in all of these discussions is to the very idea of a rule of law. You have a profound misunderstanding of law and public policy embodied in law.
American law is the child of English Common Law and the western intellectual tradition. The moral philosophy of the English Common Law is drawn from the moral philosophy of the Judaeo-Christian tradition.Many of our most basic concepts in criminal law are drawn from the Bible. Some language in criminal codes can be traced back to the King James Version of the Bible. So when I apply principles of legal analysis I an in fact applying one of the greatest intellectual achievements of our civilization. Law has shaped our culture and society.
In the Wester legal tradition, all conduct is legal (not criminal) UNLESS the CONDUCT is specifically made illegal. One very important principle of American criminal law is the requirement that any criminal act be defined with great specificity and in precise detail. The point of this requirement is to make sure that no one can say that they COULD NOT GUIDE THEIR CONDUCT by the law.
Therefore the LAW responds to CONDUCT not status, not age, not gender, not ethnicity: CONDUCT. The conduct in question here is unwed parenthood. The law, expressed through school policy, can PROPERLY respond to conduct.
Your answer to every question of legal policy is to call for “case by case” decision. This is no law at all and there is virtually NO GUARANTEE OF JUSTICE. Justice means that the same conduct is treated the same way. You would turn governance over to a virtual dictator, unrestrained by law, who makes individual case-by-case decisions. This is actually the definition of tyranny and was vigorously opposed by the Framers. The LEFT always presents itself as defenders of humanity and compassion but their policies always lead to tyranny.
Does this clear things up.
Note 41. Excellent post Augie. Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in A World Split Apart that the greatest crisis in Western culture is a crisis of courage. People need to muster the courage to speak what is true.
Note 42. Excellent post Missourian. James, for a deeper analysis of Missourian’s argument that law shapes culture, read George Will’s Statecraft as Soulcraft.
I like George Will’s writing and will take a look at this reference.
As an aside about putting unwed teen mothers in a separate school, are we punishing the action or the result? By this I mean, are we punishing those who are having sexual relations outside marriage or only those who are become pregnant as well? There are other activities that teens could be engaging in that would not result in pregnancy (though it could allow STDs). Should we separate them as well? I’m not sure what your focus is on this, but it seems we’re punishing the “unlucky” ones as opposed to the “ill-behaved” ones.
I understand about the need to separate those who engage in “destructive conduct” from the rest of society. We can’t have murderers, rapists and thieves running around threatening the general populace. So in that sense, yes, we control the behavior by keeping them from being able to commit the action again (i.e., jail). Nevertheless, I think where we disagree on at times is what types of activities are worthy of “controlling” through law, as you say. Example: while I think selling drugs is certainly worthy of jail time, I’m hesitant of sentencing drug users (esp. marijuana users) to prison (even Rush Limbaugh) where community service or some sort of “character building” assignment might serve to inspire the drug user to get off of the substance. This is simply becaue their crime is (unless done in public or driving) a vehicle for solitary destruction, much as is smoking, alcoholism or even morbid obesity. But I KNOW you disagree, so you don’t even have to launch another analysis on that one!
Its not just one pregnancy
Last post on this topic. I think some people have an image of a young woman who, in a lapse of judgment or self-control, becomes a mother out-of-wedlock and who subsequently is emotionally devastated. You imagine this young lady overwhelmed with self-reproach. I think that last happened in 1968.
Fast forward to 2005, the truth is that MANY young unwed mothers feel no real remorse. They just see themselves having a baby “a little ahead of time.” How do I know this? From juvenile court. The young people there have 2, 3 and 4 unwed pregnancies. They were not shocked into clarity by the first pregnancy, why should they have been? There were virtually no adverse consequences. (Again, my argument is that one can impose negative, but, not CRUEL consequences to destructive teenage behavior)
If you don’t want to intervene after the first unwed pregnancy, fine, but you had better get ready for the second unwed pregnancy and the third. If you don’t care about unwed pregnancy, then YOU DON”T CARE about the children who come into the world as a result of that unwed pregnancy and the lousy lives they are doomed to live. I now that I am some terrible, heartless harridan, but, somehow when choosing between the interests of the teenager and their infant child, I tend towards the infant child.
Augie writes: “The reason that illegitimacy has become ‘condoned and mainstreamed’ is that a relatively small number of politically active people have stood ready to shame anyone who criticizes it.”
Somehow I don’t think the explanation is that simple. I don’t know that much about sociology, but it seems to me that cultures are very complex things. I don’t think that a “relatively small number” of people have that kind of power.
Take, for example, the issue of divorce. Nobody likes divorce, either personally, or as it affects society — not even the liberals! Even people who are divorced don’t like the fact of being divorced. There are even a number of economic disincentives related to divorce, even to the point that both husbands and wives can be economically crippled by divorce. Were either public or private disapproval the cure, then the divorce rate would be drastically reduced. But it isn’t. This leads me to believe that there are larger factors at work.
Likewise with illegitimacy. We live in a culture awash with sexual imagery and entertainment, and conservatives are making just as much money off of sex as liberals, maybe more. We live in a culture in which being sexually attractive is very important, even to the point that people with normal anatomy undergo plastic surgery to make themselves more attractive (they think). Sex is a staple of advertising, and there are countless products sold on the basis that they will make us more attractive to the opposite sex.
So we have to look at illegitimacy in the context of the culture. We have a culture that promotes sex at every turn. So it seems to me that it’s a little late in the game to implement “disapproval” as a way of reducing illegitimacy. If you think it will reduce illegitimacy, try it first with divorce. Good luck.
Times Are Changing
Churches which emphasize traditional Christian moral teaching are growing in America and in the world.
Sexual license doesn’t promote the transmission of values or culture to the next generation. It does quite the opposite. You can have only ONE large generational group that is enamored of sexual license, the next generation is destined to be small. They may well observe the wreckage of their parents’ lives and look for something more enduring than the next kick or high.
Here another thing to consider. A recent study published in the Journal of Religion and Society tests the claim that relgious belief has a beneficial effect on society. The study concludes that “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies.”
The article is “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies”
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Note 48. A common mistake layman make with sociological data is assuming correlation equals causality. It doesn’t. Sociology cannot prove causality, it can only indicate a high degree of correlation that suggests that one thing might cause another but does not actually prove it. This is an important distinction.
The problem with the study you cite is the broad and sweeping nature of its conclusions. I know of no study that would dare to marshal the authority and credibility of the discipline to assert conclusions about the very complex relationship between between beliefs (often unquantifiable but nevertheless real), and cultural dynamics (correlation vs. causality is crucial here) in the way this study has.
Wait a few months until other sociologists have examined the data and structure of this study. My hunch is some serious flaws will be uncovered. Historians, cultural critics, novelists, etc. labor over these themes endlessly, some with great benefit and often with insights and arguments that run counter to what this study tells us is true.
Be a bit more sceptical. Just because an expert signs his name to something does not mean it is accurate.
Note 46. Jim, if we followed the disapproval you expressed towards Augie’s idea, slavery and segregation would still exist.