I just read a very interesting article on the Huffington Post, which is usually very anti-Christian. The author talks about a study done in the UK where the motivation for the largest wars in history were determined to see the role of religion. The rankings went from 0-5, 0 being no religious involvement to 5 being complete religious involvement. The study concluded that 60% of wars scored 0, and only 10% were greater than 3 (meaning some religious involvement). The author also suggested that religion may decrease war because it is the single most unifying things we have for humanity. To read the full article, go to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-j-rossano/why-religion-does-not-equ_b_637759.html
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Applause at Mass
Back in the days of universal Latin Mass, everything was pre-determined. You knew exactly what to expect. The liturgy was the same across the globe. The structure, the prayers, the rubrics, stances, music, and congregation participation was the same. There was no confusion or wondering what should be done next.
More variation became part of the Mass after the Second Vatican Council as certain priests began to take liberties. One area of confusion that arose was applause. My rule of thumb is "never applaud at Mass". Very simple. However, that rule is not being followed very much.
To appreciate how insidious incorrect applause is, we need to understand the dynamics of clapping. In order to attain critical, dare I say, mass, only a small percentage of people must begin the ovation. Even 5 enthusiastic cheerers can ignite an entire congregation. When a small group is clapping, it feels awkward not to, especially after a beautiful song. Clapping is especially prevalent at Masses attended by non-regular churchgoers at times such as Christmas and Easter.
I was having this discussion with some friends some time ago and tried to explain my reasoning. Then today I was listening to Catholic Answers Live and the guest mentioned something Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book titled "The Spirit of the Liturgy". It summed up, very succintly, the reason why people ought not applaud during Mass. Here it is:
Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attractiveness fades quickly--it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation. I myself have experienced the replacing of the penitential rite by a dance performance, which, needless to say, received a round of applause. Could there be anything farther removed from true penitence? Liturgy can only attract people when it looks, not at itself, but at God, when it allows him to enter and act. Then something truly unique happens, beyond competition, and people have a sense that more has taken place than a recreational activity. (p. 198-99)
Of course, this does not exclude some appropriate clapping before or after Mass. Also, sometimes the presiding priest before Mass really gets underway will make a special announcement perhaps a priest is celebrating his 50th year. It would be appropriate to applaud for this when the priest makes note of it. These are legitimate because they are rare and unique and the exceptional nature of the event is implied. However, I've come across some distressing examples. For example, during Mass one day there was a particularly lively tune being performed by the choir which involved rhythmic clapping. Everyone enthusiastically partook in the event. They were doing this during the preparation of the gifts. After the song was finished, the priest, instead of continuing with the liturgy, made note of the choir and said it was the best song he ever heard and then initiated applause for them. This was inappropriate for Mass.
Mass is about focusing on the liturgy and the sacrifice of the Mass, not on performances.
More variation became part of the Mass after the Second Vatican Council as certain priests began to take liberties. One area of confusion that arose was applause. My rule of thumb is "never applaud at Mass". Very simple. However, that rule is not being followed very much.
To appreciate how insidious incorrect applause is, we need to understand the dynamics of clapping. In order to attain critical, dare I say, mass, only a small percentage of people must begin the ovation. Even 5 enthusiastic cheerers can ignite an entire congregation. When a small group is clapping, it feels awkward not to, especially after a beautiful song. Clapping is especially prevalent at Masses attended by non-regular churchgoers at times such as Christmas and Easter.
I was having this discussion with some friends some time ago and tried to explain my reasoning. Then today I was listening to Catholic Answers Live and the guest mentioned something Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his book titled "The Spirit of the Liturgy". It summed up, very succintly, the reason why people ought not applaud during Mass. Here it is:
Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attractiveness fades quickly--it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation. I myself have experienced the replacing of the penitential rite by a dance performance, which, needless to say, received a round of applause. Could there be anything farther removed from true penitence? Liturgy can only attract people when it looks, not at itself, but at God, when it allows him to enter and act. Then something truly unique happens, beyond competition, and people have a sense that more has taken place than a recreational activity. (p. 198-99)
Of course, this does not exclude some appropriate clapping before or after Mass. Also, sometimes the presiding priest before Mass really gets underway will make a special announcement perhaps a priest is celebrating his 50th year. It would be appropriate to applaud for this when the priest makes note of it. These are legitimate because they are rare and unique and the exceptional nature of the event is implied. However, I've come across some distressing examples. For example, during Mass one day there was a particularly lively tune being performed by the choir which involved rhythmic clapping. Everyone enthusiastically partook in the event. They were doing this during the preparation of the gifts. After the song was finished, the priest, instead of continuing with the liturgy, made note of the choir and said it was the best song he ever heard and then initiated applause for them. This was inappropriate for Mass.
Mass is about focusing on the liturgy and the sacrifice of the Mass, not on performances.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Mass Times for St. John's Newfoundland Labrador Metro Area
Here are the Mass Times (and confession times) for the St. John's Metro Region, including St. John's, Mount Pearl, Torbay, and Outer Cove, Newfoundland and Labrador for the Summer of 2010.
(Click the image to enlarge it.)
(Click the image to enlarge it.)
Response to "The New Traditional Family Gets Respect"
Psychology Today writer Susan Newman is noticing that the single child family is getting more respect than in the past. She claims the traditional notion is that families should have multiple kids. She believes this is a good step because raising children is much more expensive, and she discusses the fact that many parents are choosing to have fewer children.
I agree but also disagree with her assessment. First of all, I do not believe single child families are discriminated against very much. It is indeed rather normal for a family to opt to have but one child. On the other hand, families with 4 or more children are often looked upon with suspicion and possibly disdain. The mother is seen as an oppressed baby-making factory that is the result of a domineering patriarchal subgroup. Sometimes they are even compared to parasites who are beset on overloading the fragile earth with offspring.
Most often, two children is considered the responsible number. Three is reluctantly accepted, but go beyond that and you open yourself to ridicule. I do agree that perhaps people look down on single-child families. The child is seen as selfish, as is the family. It is also seen a cruel to refuse a sibling for this young person.
I think we must have respect for single-child families. Often they have very good reasons for having only one child. Perhaps financial, medical, or other issue. We ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Another area with which I take issue in this article is the idea that parents decide how many children they will have based on financial considerations and lifestyle choices. Children are seen as additions to a marriage, like a two-car garage vs. a one-car garage. People try to "engineer" their family. Many say they want one boy and one girl. That they say will complete their "image" of a family. This of course leads to other abuses of fertility.
Couples who achieve their two child limit will often have permanent sterilization performed on themselves. In extreme cases, they may even opt for in-vitro fertilization as they seek to engineer their boy-girl family. On the other side of the equation, many couples who have fertility problems will resort to any means to have two children, whether these methods are morally licit or not.
I believe we must renew our understanding of fertility. It is a gift from God and does not fluctuate between a blessing and a curse depending on the desire of those using it. Rather than manipulating and controlling our bodies, why not seek what God and nature has intended. Contraceptives are the only medical tool used to prevent a properly-functioning system from doing what it is meant to do.
Because of our contraceptive mentality, our society is suffering. Most Western nations are at below-replacement level fertility rate, meaning if this trend continues, our populations will continue to decline. This has many negative consequences. Because people are living to an older age, we need more workers to support them. With not enough young people around, the system becomes top-heavy with many elderly but few young people. Also, young working people pay taxes, which is used to provide services for elderly people. Right now there is a lot of risk for social services, including pension.
Because Western countries are dropping in fertility, so too does their influence drop. Those with ideas which are radically different than ours flood into these countries to keep them alive. Our democracy, ideas of equality, religious freedom, and other issues are affected negatively.
Let us stop putting our bodies at risk by sabatoging natural processes. Children are not accessories or ego-boosts, they are gifts from God. There are good, valid reasons for refraining from seeking to have another child, so we can never judge anyone's motivation. But if someone can properly support them, I implore them to joyfully follow God's plan.
The article to which I was responded is located here.
I agree but also disagree with her assessment. First of all, I do not believe single child families are discriminated against very much. It is indeed rather normal for a family to opt to have but one child. On the other hand, families with 4 or more children are often looked upon with suspicion and possibly disdain. The mother is seen as an oppressed baby-making factory that is the result of a domineering patriarchal subgroup. Sometimes they are even compared to parasites who are beset on overloading the fragile earth with offspring.
Most often, two children is considered the responsible number. Three is reluctantly accepted, but go beyond that and you open yourself to ridicule. I do agree that perhaps people look down on single-child families. The child is seen as selfish, as is the family. It is also seen a cruel to refuse a sibling for this young person.
I think we must have respect for single-child families. Often they have very good reasons for having only one child. Perhaps financial, medical, or other issue. We ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Another area with which I take issue in this article is the idea that parents decide how many children they will have based on financial considerations and lifestyle choices. Children are seen as additions to a marriage, like a two-car garage vs. a one-car garage. People try to "engineer" their family. Many say they want one boy and one girl. That they say will complete their "image" of a family. This of course leads to other abuses of fertility.
Couples who achieve their two child limit will often have permanent sterilization performed on themselves. In extreme cases, they may even opt for in-vitro fertilization as they seek to engineer their boy-girl family. On the other side of the equation, many couples who have fertility problems will resort to any means to have two children, whether these methods are morally licit or not.
I believe we must renew our understanding of fertility. It is a gift from God and does not fluctuate between a blessing and a curse depending on the desire of those using it. Rather than manipulating and controlling our bodies, why not seek what God and nature has intended. Contraceptives are the only medical tool used to prevent a properly-functioning system from doing what it is meant to do.
Because of our contraceptive mentality, our society is suffering. Most Western nations are at below-replacement level fertility rate, meaning if this trend continues, our populations will continue to decline. This has many negative consequences. Because people are living to an older age, we need more workers to support them. With not enough young people around, the system becomes top-heavy with many elderly but few young people. Also, young working people pay taxes, which is used to provide services for elderly people. Right now there is a lot of risk for social services, including pension.
Because Western countries are dropping in fertility, so too does their influence drop. Those with ideas which are radically different than ours flood into these countries to keep them alive. Our democracy, ideas of equality, religious freedom, and other issues are affected negatively.
Let us stop putting our bodies at risk by sabatoging natural processes. Children are not accessories or ego-boosts, they are gifts from God. There are good, valid reasons for refraining from seeking to have another child, so we can never judge anyone's motivation. But if someone can properly support them, I implore them to joyfully follow God's plan.
The article to which I was responded is located here.
400th Blog Post
I just wanted to make a quick note to thank all the readers of this blog. This is the 400th posting. I currently have 16 followers. I hope to keep writing for a long time into the future, God-willing. :)
Was Mother Teresa Greedy?
People love to talk for Mother Teresa, like they knew her or something. It's getting a little old right now. I don't mind people objectively speaking about Mother Teresa or what she did, but it gets ridiculous when they start talking about her motivations, etc. Like in this clip, when the guy defending greed says Mother Teresa was greedy. What I see here is not an honest assessment of Mother Teresa, but rather a person trying to justify greed.
They go on to turn greed into some kind of generic term for desiring something. Fred L. Smith, one of the guests, says we should value greed because it has helped the world so much. He goes as far as to say nothing else helps the world except greed. He says "Mother Teresa was greedy, but for good things". The lady interviewer agrees by saying "exactly, the personal reward of helping other people, the emotions she felt as the result of that, that was her motivation and self-interest".
Using greed in this sense is really stretching it beyond its definition. This usage of language annoys me because it represents the speaker's attempt to make a universal statement that's true even though the actual definition of the word would not merit this. For example, in this case, stating that "everyone is greedy". What's really behind these statements is an attempt to justify basing one's life on greed. He can readily admit "Yes, I'm greedy. But so is everyone else, including Mother Teresa. I'm greedy for money, but she was greedy for a feeling!"
The classic definition of greed is:
Greed (Latin, avaritia), also known as avarice or covetousness, is, like lust and gluttony, a sin of excess. However, greed (as seen by the church) is applied to a very excessive or rapacious desire and pursuit of wealth, status, and power. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that greed was "a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things."
Mother Teresa did not possess a rapacious desire and pursuit of wealth, status, and power. The opposite of greed is Charity.
Charity is defined as follows:
Love, in this sense of an unlimited loving-kindness towards all others, is held to be the ultimate perfection of the human spirit, because it is said to both glorify and reflect the nature of God. In its most extreme form such love can be self-sacrificial.
Mother Teresa was not greedy. In fact, she exemplified the opposite - charity. Mother Teresa had such love and compassion for all those she helped. She was certainly self-sacrificial. She could have had an easy life, but instead chose to live in extreme poverty, giving everything she had away. To call Mother Teresa greedy is about as far from the truth as one can get! To top it all off, the name of the Order of Nuns she founded is called the "Sisters of Charity", not the sisters of greed.
Greed is never a good thing, and has not helped society. Generosity, love, compassion, and charity have helped the world. I think the point that was being made on the show is that greed has allowed many people to accumulate great wealth and they were able to give some of that wealth to help others. I certainly think that's laudable. I agree with the capitalist system. It should be noted that making a lot of money is not necessarily greedy. Greed comes into play when one focuses all his energies in gaining wealth, power, etc. for himself with no intention of helping others. It's about excessive desire for personal gain.
Greed is a sin, and should not be justified. I find that happens often in these types of discussions. Greed is one thing, but the other seven deadly also fall victim to a watering-down effect as well.
For example, gluttony. Gluttony has traditionally been defined as an excessive preoccupation with food. Some have said that one can be a glutton when it comes to anything including video games, movies, even exercise. Although this is correct to some extent, watering down a concept can have negative effects also. When you start to see everything as possible gluttony, it becomes too much to track and the task of avoiding it becomes overwhelming. Indeed, for some, that is the point. Everything becomes a potential sin, so instead of worrying about sin, we just think about forgiveness.
To summarize, we must maintain a moral lifestyle and not justify it by claiming that holy people also partake in certain behaviors.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Hundreds of Anglican priests going over to Catholic Church
A couple of factors have collided to cause hundreds of Anglican bishops to convert to the Catholic faith and bring thousands of parishioners with them. The two factors are as follows:
- The Church of England is about to authorize the ordination of female bishops. This is something that has already happened in some countries. However, it is not throughout the whole Anglican communion, and there is a General Synod of the Anglican Church being convened to discuss this issue. There are two sides. One is the traditionalists who want to have male-only bishops and want their own separate authority system. The other are the liberal faction which wants little or no restrictions of female bishops. Needless to say, this is causing considerable tension, and since no bishop in the Anglican Church has more authority than another, there can be no overriding decree pronounced.
- The other factor the pope last year created a process whereby Anglicans could become Catholic while maintaining many of their unique traditions. Sort of like the fact that there are Roman Catholics and there are Ukrainian Catholics. They each have their own traditions, but are both fully Catholic in unity with the Pope.
Because of these two factors, there are hundreds of traditionalist Anglican priests who are moving over to become Catholic.
To read more about the upcoming Anglican synod, please go here.
To read more about the hundreds of Anglican priests who are converting, please go here.
- The Church of England is about to authorize the ordination of female bishops. This is something that has already happened in some countries. However, it is not throughout the whole Anglican communion, and there is a General Synod of the Anglican Church being convened to discuss this issue. There are two sides. One is the traditionalists who want to have male-only bishops and want their own separate authority system. The other are the liberal faction which wants little or no restrictions of female bishops. Needless to say, this is causing considerable tension, and since no bishop in the Anglican Church has more authority than another, there can be no overriding decree pronounced.
- The other factor the pope last year created a process whereby Anglicans could become Catholic while maintaining many of their unique traditions. Sort of like the fact that there are Roman Catholics and there are Ukrainian Catholics. They each have their own traditions, but are both fully Catholic in unity with the Pope.
Because of these two factors, there are hundreds of traditionalist Anglican priests who are moving over to become Catholic.
To read more about the upcoming Anglican synod, please go here.
To read more about the hundreds of Anglican priests who are converting, please go here.
Wage inequality from a Catholic perspective
A feminist group in Sweden is upset because women are not paid as much as men. To bring attention to this situation, the group staged a protest where they burned 100,000 Swedish Crowns. What are we to make of this and is pay inequality morally acceptable?
From a Catholic perspective, men and women are equal in dignity and share the same rights. Therefore, they ought to be paid the same for the same work and qualitifications. Pay inequality is morally wrong on the any basis beside professional considerations.
But I think there is something else going on in Sweden. Sweden is very much concerned for equal rights between men and women. They are a very progressive society, sometimes progressing in the wrong way. Why would such a country have an issue with pay inequality. It doesn't seem to make sense. We are simply not hearing the full story.
In most Western countries, an organization is legally obliged to pay men and women the same pay for the same work. In the past, there were actual differences in minimum wage. I remember reading the minimum wage from around 1950. It would say "men: $0.50 per hour, women: $0.35 per hour". This is a clear example of pay inequality. But that doesn't exist now.
Men and women in fact do get paid the same for the same work. The difference is that men take professions that pay higher in a given area, due to greater risk and general undesirability of a career. For example, heart surgeons are paid higher than family doctors for many reasons. The job of the heart surgeon is more complicated and risky, involves variable and long hours, and is less desirable. On the other hand, a family doctor has very reasonable hours normally, mainly works in an office setting, and has little risk. Men choose to become heart surgeons more than women, who tend to become family doctors more frequently. It would not be fair to say male doctors are paid more than female doctors in this case. It would be more accurate to say heart surgeons are paid more than family doctors.
Most hospitals would have an equal pay policy. If a male and female doctor were both heart surgeons, worked the same hours, had the same level of experience, etc. they would be paid the same.
There are more factors as well. Men often take generally riskier jobs, like fighter pilot, bodyguard, police officer, soldier, alaska crab fisherman, etc. Women on average take more office jobs which involve little risk, therefore men are compensated for the additional risk. Again, if a woman took one of the risky jobs, she too would get paid more.
Another factor is that women are more likely to stay at home with their children to raise them or for maternity leave. Taking maternity leave would reduce a woman's income by a large percentage.
If a company is clearly in violation of pay equity laws, as in they pay women less for the same job as men, then they should be prosecuted. But to burn thousands of dollars of money is an unacceptable way to get attention.
From a Catholic perspective, men and women are equal in dignity and share the same rights. Therefore, they ought to be paid the same for the same work and qualitifications. Pay inequality is morally wrong on the any basis beside professional considerations.
But I think there is something else going on in Sweden. Sweden is very much concerned for equal rights between men and women. They are a very progressive society, sometimes progressing in the wrong way. Why would such a country have an issue with pay inequality. It doesn't seem to make sense. We are simply not hearing the full story.
In most Western countries, an organization is legally obliged to pay men and women the same pay for the same work. In the past, there were actual differences in minimum wage. I remember reading the minimum wage from around 1950. It would say "men: $0.50 per hour, women: $0.35 per hour". This is a clear example of pay inequality. But that doesn't exist now.
Men and women in fact do get paid the same for the same work. The difference is that men take professions that pay higher in a given area, due to greater risk and general undesirability of a career. For example, heart surgeons are paid higher than family doctors for many reasons. The job of the heart surgeon is more complicated and risky, involves variable and long hours, and is less desirable. On the other hand, a family doctor has very reasonable hours normally, mainly works in an office setting, and has little risk. Men choose to become heart surgeons more than women, who tend to become family doctors more frequently. It would not be fair to say male doctors are paid more than female doctors in this case. It would be more accurate to say heart surgeons are paid more than family doctors.
Most hospitals would have an equal pay policy. If a male and female doctor were both heart surgeons, worked the same hours, had the same level of experience, etc. they would be paid the same.
There are more factors as well. Men often take generally riskier jobs, like fighter pilot, bodyguard, police officer, soldier, alaska crab fisherman, etc. Women on average take more office jobs which involve little risk, therefore men are compensated for the additional risk. Again, if a woman took one of the risky jobs, she too would get paid more.
Another factor is that women are more likely to stay at home with their children to raise them or for maternity leave. Taking maternity leave would reduce a woman's income by a large percentage.
If a company is clearly in violation of pay equity laws, as in they pay women less for the same job as men, then they should be prosecuted. But to burn thousands of dollars of money is an unacceptable way to get attention.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Risks of Gay Marriage ignored in favor of Political Correctness
According to research done by Walter R Schumm, the mainstream media and scienific journals often ignore any negative information concerning same sex marriage and the raising of children in order to be more politically correct. Also, he alleges that studies which show LGBT families are equivalent to heterosexual relationships are republished much more than studies not showing this.
Here is the article:
The other story about same-sex parenting
Research showing the risks of lesbian and gay parenting is ignored in the race to make a political case.
There is an inherent risk that anyone who has anything to say about gay male or lesbian parenting, no matter how cautious, will be misunderstood at best and vilified at worst. Nevertheless, the mission of a university professor includes seeking new ways to look at old issues, to resist all forms of intimidation, and to ensure that multiple sides of controversial issues are considered. Since there are more voices promoting the virtues of parenting by people defining themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (GLBT), I will present here an alternative, possibly minority, view that focuses on some of the possible risks associated with gay and lesbian parenting.
This is a challenging area. As one hint about the difficulties, consider this: when a group of authors published three articles (two even in the same journal) on data from the same set of lesbian parents about 1980, the two articles reporting favorable outcomes were cited 65 times compared to only two citations for the one article reporting unfavorable outcomes. In other cases, the worse the methodological quality of the research, the more likely it is to have been cited in major reviews of the literature.
The methodological quality of much of the literature is poor. Many studies have not controlled for parental educational and family per-capita income differences between lesbian and heterosexual families. Regardless, between February and June of 2010 no less than three articles have concluded that two lesbian mothers may, on average, tend to be better parents than heterosexual parents (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Gartrell & Bos, 2010; Biblarz & Savci, 2010) -- quite a controversial position. However, serious concerns remain.
Sexual Fidelity
Research is increasingly clear that many lesbigay partners enter into their versions of a committed relationship with expectations that cheating is acceptable. Some research suggests that gay men have more stable relationships only if cheating is permitted. Michael Bettinger (2006) reported: “An important difference between gay men and heterosexuals is that the majority of gay men in committed relationships are not monogamous”.
Dr. Esther Rothblum has reported that whereas women (lesbian or heterosexual) seldom permit sexual affairs, “40 percent of gay men in civil unions have an agreement that non-monogamy is permitted and over half have had sex outside their current relationship”. If gay marriage means accepting sexual non-monogamy within marriage, we must accept an inherent change in the intrinsic meaning of marriage and ultimately the meaning of responsible parenting.
Relationship Stability and Children
Another issue concerns the relationship between having children and staying together for the sake of the children. Though gay and lesbian couples in some studies appear to have higher quality, more satisfying relationships, they also appear less likely to remain stable when children are involved. Recent studies by Patterson and by Nanette Gartrell in the United States, as well as Scandinavian research, confirm this outcome, even when the GLBT subjects sampled had much higher levels of education than the heterosexual subjects.
Recently, Gartrell and Bos reported that over 56 per cent of lesbian parents had separated by the time their child was 17 years old. Based on the mothers’ reports of the children’s psychological adjustment, the adverse impact of that instability was not quite statistically significant. Comparable studies of heterosexual parents have found rates of separation ranging from 3 per cent to less than 30 percent over similar timeframes.
As yet, we have no published data on the stability of legally married LGBT parents. However, recent evidence indicates that very few GLBT individuals come together with the intention of having children and few, in fact, ever have children; if they do have a child, few spend the entire year with that child.
Effects on Children
Richard Redding, writing in a 2008 issue of the Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, concluded that gay parents were more likely to have gay children. My meta-analyses of 26 studies and ten books on GLBT parenting concur with his findings (Schumm, in press). Furthermore, my research indicates that many literature reviews have systematically excluded information about negative child outcomes associated with gay parenting -- that is, greater levels of insecure attachment and drug abuse among daughters of gay fathers. The most recent review of literature on GLBT families did not mention Sirota’s (2009) research, even though I reported a summary of it two years ago.
Space does not permit an adequate treatment here, but some research suggests differential effects on sex role orientations of children and their views of non-monogamous sexuality. My hunch is that delayed gratification orientation may be an important intervening variable for understanding the influence of parental sexual orientation on child outcomes, but I am not aware of any studies on that variable.
Again, there appear to be differences in reporting of child outcomes, depending on the source of the data – whether parents, children, or teachers, for example. My sense is that maternal reports tend to be influenced by what the writers understand to be socially desirable outcomes, especially if the mothers sense the political purposes of the study.
Ends do not justify the means
One could probably write a book on the misuse of research regarding LGBT individuals and families. Even if the political goals of the researchers were laudable, the misuse of science would not be. In my view, the ends do not justify the means. Numerous legal and social science scholars have virtually sworn that the idea that GLBT parents might tend to have GLBT children was nothing but a myth; however, close examination of multiple sources of data suggests otherwise, as my forthcoming article will show.
Today, some would say, so what? That might be a plausible position, but it was not the position taken by most scholars between 1990 and 2005. Then, and now, I presume, most of the public would deem relationship instability to be unfavorable for the welfare of children, and would want to consider the evidence that lesbian parents have much less stable relationships than do married heterosexual parents.
As I noted at the beginning, it is risky to express such views about same-sex parenting, no matter how objectively based they are. But the public has a right to consider all the evidence in such an important matter, affecting as it does the welfare of children.
Dr Walter Schumm is a Professor of Family Studies in the School of Family Studies and Human Services at Kansas State University. He has published over 250 scholarly articles and book chapters and is co-editor of the Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach (Plenum, 1993; Springer, 2009). He is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, a former brigade and battalion commander. His views may not reflect the positions of Kansas State University or the US Department of Defense.
For further information, including a list of references for the above article, contact Dr Schumm at schumm@ksu.edu
This article is published by Walter R Schumm, and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.
Here is the article:
The other story about same-sex parenting
Research showing the risks of lesbian and gay parenting is ignored in the race to make a political case.
There is an inherent risk that anyone who has anything to say about gay male or lesbian parenting, no matter how cautious, will be misunderstood at best and vilified at worst. Nevertheless, the mission of a university professor includes seeking new ways to look at old issues, to resist all forms of intimidation, and to ensure that multiple sides of controversial issues are considered. Since there are more voices promoting the virtues of parenting by people defining themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (GLBT), I will present here an alternative, possibly minority, view that focuses on some of the possible risks associated with gay and lesbian parenting.
This is a challenging area. As one hint about the difficulties, consider this: when a group of authors published three articles (two even in the same journal) on data from the same set of lesbian parents about 1980, the two articles reporting favorable outcomes were cited 65 times compared to only two citations for the one article reporting unfavorable outcomes. In other cases, the worse the methodological quality of the research, the more likely it is to have been cited in major reviews of the literature.
The methodological quality of much of the literature is poor. Many studies have not controlled for parental educational and family per-capita income differences between lesbian and heterosexual families. Regardless, between February and June of 2010 no less than three articles have concluded that two lesbian mothers may, on average, tend to be better parents than heterosexual parents (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Gartrell & Bos, 2010; Biblarz & Savci, 2010) -- quite a controversial position. However, serious concerns remain.
Sexual Fidelity
Research is increasingly clear that many lesbigay partners enter into their versions of a committed relationship with expectations that cheating is acceptable. Some research suggests that gay men have more stable relationships only if cheating is permitted. Michael Bettinger (2006) reported: “An important difference between gay men and heterosexuals is that the majority of gay men in committed relationships are not monogamous”.
Dr. Esther Rothblum has reported that whereas women (lesbian or heterosexual) seldom permit sexual affairs, “40 percent of gay men in civil unions have an agreement that non-monogamy is permitted and over half have had sex outside their current relationship”. If gay marriage means accepting sexual non-monogamy within marriage, we must accept an inherent change in the intrinsic meaning of marriage and ultimately the meaning of responsible parenting.
Relationship Stability and Children
Another issue concerns the relationship between having children and staying together for the sake of the children. Though gay and lesbian couples in some studies appear to have higher quality, more satisfying relationships, they also appear less likely to remain stable when children are involved. Recent studies by Patterson and by Nanette Gartrell in the United States, as well as Scandinavian research, confirm this outcome, even when the GLBT subjects sampled had much higher levels of education than the heterosexual subjects.
Recently, Gartrell and Bos reported that over 56 per cent of lesbian parents had separated by the time their child was 17 years old. Based on the mothers’ reports of the children’s psychological adjustment, the adverse impact of that instability was not quite statistically significant. Comparable studies of heterosexual parents have found rates of separation ranging from 3 per cent to less than 30 percent over similar timeframes.
As yet, we have no published data on the stability of legally married LGBT parents. However, recent evidence indicates that very few GLBT individuals come together with the intention of having children and few, in fact, ever have children; if they do have a child, few spend the entire year with that child.
Effects on Children
Richard Redding, writing in a 2008 issue of the Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy, concluded that gay parents were more likely to have gay children. My meta-analyses of 26 studies and ten books on GLBT parenting concur with his findings (Schumm, in press). Furthermore, my research indicates that many literature reviews have systematically excluded information about negative child outcomes associated with gay parenting -- that is, greater levels of insecure attachment and drug abuse among daughters of gay fathers. The most recent review of literature on GLBT families did not mention Sirota’s (2009) research, even though I reported a summary of it two years ago.
Space does not permit an adequate treatment here, but some research suggests differential effects on sex role orientations of children and their views of non-monogamous sexuality. My hunch is that delayed gratification orientation may be an important intervening variable for understanding the influence of parental sexual orientation on child outcomes, but I am not aware of any studies on that variable.
Again, there appear to be differences in reporting of child outcomes, depending on the source of the data – whether parents, children, or teachers, for example. My sense is that maternal reports tend to be influenced by what the writers understand to be socially desirable outcomes, especially if the mothers sense the political purposes of the study.
Ends do not justify the means
One could probably write a book on the misuse of research regarding LGBT individuals and families. Even if the political goals of the researchers were laudable, the misuse of science would not be. In my view, the ends do not justify the means. Numerous legal and social science scholars have virtually sworn that the idea that GLBT parents might tend to have GLBT children was nothing but a myth; however, close examination of multiple sources of data suggests otherwise, as my forthcoming article will show.
Today, some would say, so what? That might be a plausible position, but it was not the position taken by most scholars between 1990 and 2005. Then, and now, I presume, most of the public would deem relationship instability to be unfavorable for the welfare of children, and would want to consider the evidence that lesbian parents have much less stable relationships than do married heterosexual parents.
As I noted at the beginning, it is risky to express such views about same-sex parenting, no matter how objectively based they are. But the public has a right to consider all the evidence in such an important matter, affecting as it does the welfare of children.
Dr Walter Schumm is a Professor of Family Studies in the School of Family Studies and Human Services at Kansas State University. He has published over 250 scholarly articles and book chapters and is co-editor of the Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach (Plenum, 1993; Springer, 2009). He is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, a former brigade and battalion commander. His views may not reflect the positions of Kansas State University or the US Department of Defense.
For further information, including a list of references for the above article, contact Dr Schumm at schumm@ksu.edu
This article is published by Walter R Schumm, and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.
Betty White has it Right
Betty White was on Joy Behar's show. Usually Joy does all she can to promote gay marriage, and gay characters on television, so it wasn't a surprised when she had some questions from Facebook to ask Betty White and the first one was "Would you ever play a lesbian?" Betty White had the best answer. She said there's already too much of that on television now and she would choose not to. She said she's at the stage where she can choose her roles. Good for her. I'm sure Betty White really doesn't care what anyone else thinks and she didn't play along with the political correct agent.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The View pushes Gay Marriage agenda
On Friday's episode of the View, there was a segment on worldwide adoption. They talked about how many Americans want to adopt children from other nations. So, they brought on two groups that adopted children. One was a single mother, and the other were two gay men. Of course, there was no husband and wife couple that adopted a child on the show. Having them might be politically incorrect and imply that gay people shouldn't adopt.
The episode bemoaned worldwide opinion that the best place for a child is with a mother and a father, rather than a single parent and especially not a gay couple. They said only a handful of countries adopt children to single parents, but even fewer adopt to gay couples. In fact, the couple on the show adopted from Guatemala, where they officially adopted the child to a single parent, and sort of had a don't ask don't tell policy about the other man. I believe they said the only country in the world that adopts children to gay parents is South Africa.
The show presented these worldwide policies as wrong and unjust. But maybe for a second, they should pause to consider that maybe not every country on the entire planet is wrong. Maybe having an environment with a husband and wife really IS the best place for a child. As I have mentioned in previous postings, I do not believe two gay men are the best people to adopt a child. First of all, there is absolutely no maternal love given to the child. It is two men, two males, who are attracted to each other. Even a heterosexual man would offer one side of the complementarity. He would be disposed toward affection for women. However, the gay men do not offer this complementarity. They are not men who are drawn to women, but rather men who are drawn to men. There is no female influence.
The episode also highlighted another problem. Why would a person purposely go outside their own country to adopt a child. It seems more "hip" to do it that way. What's cooler? Telling your friends you adopted a child from Flint, Michigan, or that you adopted an exotic child from Cambodia, or Mali? By adopting a foreign baby, they appear more urbane, more hip, more globally-minded. But to me, this whole concept smacks of going on a shopping spree. Picking up that fascinating African art. Like returning from a safari with an interesting find. Not satisfied with wearing Nike, these seek Armani. Children are treated as accessories, highlighting some aspect of the "purchaser's" personality.
They constantly complained on the show about all the red-tape they had to bypass to adopt a child from another country. Why not stick to their own country? Indeed, many people have made the correct observation that often adopting a child from another country is not the best thing to help them. All the money, time and effort spent on bringing one child from a poor village to America could have been better spent on supporting the entire community. It would probably cost the same to sponsor a community as it would to adopt a child. Often, one of the parents of the child is still alive, but because of financial difficulty, the parent is forced to hand over the child to someone else. It would have been better support the parent in raising the child.
Gay adoption is very rare compared to adoption by a mother and father, and is illegal in all countries except South Africa. Why does the media focus on this type of adoption so very often?
The episode bemoaned worldwide opinion that the best place for a child is with a mother and a father, rather than a single parent and especially not a gay couple. They said only a handful of countries adopt children to single parents, but even fewer adopt to gay couples. In fact, the couple on the show adopted from Guatemala, where they officially adopted the child to a single parent, and sort of had a don't ask don't tell policy about the other man. I believe they said the only country in the world that adopts children to gay parents is South Africa.
The show presented these worldwide policies as wrong and unjust. But maybe for a second, they should pause to consider that maybe not every country on the entire planet is wrong. Maybe having an environment with a husband and wife really IS the best place for a child. As I have mentioned in previous postings, I do not believe two gay men are the best people to adopt a child. First of all, there is absolutely no maternal love given to the child. It is two men, two males, who are attracted to each other. Even a heterosexual man would offer one side of the complementarity. He would be disposed toward affection for women. However, the gay men do not offer this complementarity. They are not men who are drawn to women, but rather men who are drawn to men. There is no female influence.
The episode also highlighted another problem. Why would a person purposely go outside their own country to adopt a child. It seems more "hip" to do it that way. What's cooler? Telling your friends you adopted a child from Flint, Michigan, or that you adopted an exotic child from Cambodia, or Mali? By adopting a foreign baby, they appear more urbane, more hip, more globally-minded. But to me, this whole concept smacks of going on a shopping spree. Picking up that fascinating African art. Like returning from a safari with an interesting find. Not satisfied with wearing Nike, these seek Armani. Children are treated as accessories, highlighting some aspect of the "purchaser's" personality.
They constantly complained on the show about all the red-tape they had to bypass to adopt a child from another country. Why not stick to their own country? Indeed, many people have made the correct observation that often adopting a child from another country is not the best thing to help them. All the money, time and effort spent on bringing one child from a poor village to America could have been better spent on supporting the entire community. It would probably cost the same to sponsor a community as it would to adopt a child. Often, one of the parents of the child is still alive, but because of financial difficulty, the parent is forced to hand over the child to someone else. It would have been better support the parent in raising the child.
Gay adoption is very rare compared to adoption by a mother and father, and is illegal in all countries except South Africa. Why does the media focus on this type of adoption so very often?
Should Catholic Hospitals perform abortions?
The ACLU is getting upset because they want Catholic Hospitals to abort babies, but of course they refuse. The reason this has come up now is because a nun who worked at the hospital was excommunicated because she authorized an abortion on a woman who was ill. Sr. Margaret McBride was demoted and excommunicated while working at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix AZ.
The thing is, abortions are never necessary. I don't know the specifics of the woman in question that the nun authorized an abortion for, but it indicates she was ill. If she was ill and required medical treatment, Catholic moral law would permit that. Let me explain the Catholic position on this situation.
If a womas has a life-threatening condition, she can receive treatment for it, even if doing so would end up killing the child. For example, her uterus develops cancer. It must be removed to save her life. The child who is in her womb dies. The death of the child is an unintended consequence of her action, and is therefore not morally impermissible. This would fall under the moral law of double effect.
If a woman would simply get sick or may have issues raising a child, these do not constitute a situation where the baby's life could be sacrificed.
The Catholic belief is that life begins at conception and therefore someone cannot take a life because of a personal issue or inconvenience.
I'm not sure why the ACLU wants Catholic Hospitals to provide abortions. Aren't there enough abortion facilities around? That's like demanding that Muslim Hospitals serve pork. Why? It makes no sense to me.
The thing is, abortions are never necessary. I don't know the specifics of the woman in question that the nun authorized an abortion for, but it indicates she was ill. If she was ill and required medical treatment, Catholic moral law would permit that. Let me explain the Catholic position on this situation.
If a womas has a life-threatening condition, she can receive treatment for it, even if doing so would end up killing the child. For example, her uterus develops cancer. It must be removed to save her life. The child who is in her womb dies. The death of the child is an unintended consequence of her action, and is therefore not morally impermissible. This would fall under the moral law of double effect.
If a woman would simply get sick or may have issues raising a child, these do not constitute a situation where the baby's life could be sacrificed.
The Catholic belief is that life begins at conception and therefore someone cannot take a life because of a personal issue or inconvenience.
I'm not sure why the ACLU wants Catholic Hospitals to provide abortions. Aren't there enough abortion facilities around? That's like demanding that Muslim Hospitals serve pork. Why? It makes no sense to me.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Director of "The Kids are All Right" using movie to normalize her lifestyle
The Kids are All Right, which premieres today in limited release, is about two lesbians (Nic and Jules) who use the sperm of a donor, and the technology of a laboratory to get one of them pregnant and have a child. Later, they have another child with the same sperm donor (Paul). Joni (female) and Laser (male), the two children, become interested in their father and so go looking for him. They find him and he comes into their lives, but there is resistence from the two lesbians.
If you haven't guessed already, this movie is meant to once again try to normalize homosexual relationships. The point of the movie is lesbian and gay couples have their problems, their ups and downs, just like every other couple. They're no different. They're just regular folk like you and me trying to get along in this world.
Homosexual activity is never portrayed as anything but normal in these movies. They want everyone to accept their new moral code and have no qualms about homosexual relationships.
The image that's presented though must be regarded as nothing but propaganda. We know from many studies that children, especially girls, fare much better when they have a father figure in their lives. This is not a social construct. If you look at every society in the world, marriage has always been between male and female. Ying and yang. Two complementary forces. We cannot change the human person simply by desiring it.
Another trend lately is to show homosexual partners as just your regular nuclear family that wants the same lifestyle as the typical 1950s family. This is simply not true. The vast majority of gay or lesbian couples do not want to have a family or children. In fact, statistics show promiscuity is extremely rampant within gay communities. So much so that monogamy really is the exception to the rule and a rarity.
I heard one time that there are about 1000 gay couples in the US that have adopted a child or otherwise had a child, out of 777,000 total gay couples in the US. Therefore only 1 out of 777 have any children, adopted or otherwise, which is 0.129%.
According to the US Census Bureau, 28% of households have children, which works out to about 32,000,000 households with children (total households: 115 million).
For every child who has "two mommies" or "two daddies", there are 32,000 that have a mommy and daddy. Why is it then that it seems nearly half of all children on TV or in movies are raised by gay parents? From this movie to "Modern Family", time after time, we see this portrayal of a loving gay couple wishing to have a normal family and adopt a child, yet according to actual statistics this arrangement is exceedingly rare. Sometimes, television stations will seek out real life examples of this. Not long ago, CNN had a one-hour program called Gary and Tony Have a Baby.
There seems to be an obsession with showing as many "normal" gay families as possible in order to increase acceptance.
But in this particular case, we can find an ulterior motive. The director of this film, Lisa Cholodenko, is herself in a lesbian relationship. She received an anonymous sperm donation and had a son Calder. She lives with a woman named Wendy Melvoin.
It is unfashionable to question these types of relationships, but let's focus on the children for a few minutes. They are not accessories to a style, or a political statement. They are living, breathing, gifts from God who have a right to know their parents and live in a complementary, loving atmosphere.
If you haven't guessed already, this movie is meant to once again try to normalize homosexual relationships. The point of the movie is lesbian and gay couples have their problems, their ups and downs, just like every other couple. They're no different. They're just regular folk like you and me trying to get along in this world.
Homosexual activity is never portrayed as anything but normal in these movies. They want everyone to accept their new moral code and have no qualms about homosexual relationships.
The image that's presented though must be regarded as nothing but propaganda. We know from many studies that children, especially girls, fare much better when they have a father figure in their lives. This is not a social construct. If you look at every society in the world, marriage has always been between male and female. Ying and yang. Two complementary forces. We cannot change the human person simply by desiring it.
Another trend lately is to show homosexual partners as just your regular nuclear family that wants the same lifestyle as the typical 1950s family. This is simply not true. The vast majority of gay or lesbian couples do not want to have a family or children. In fact, statistics show promiscuity is extremely rampant within gay communities. So much so that monogamy really is the exception to the rule and a rarity.
I heard one time that there are about 1000 gay couples in the US that have adopted a child or otherwise had a child, out of 777,000 total gay couples in the US. Therefore only 1 out of 777 have any children, adopted or otherwise, which is 0.129%.
According to the US Census Bureau, 28% of households have children, which works out to about 32,000,000 households with children (total households: 115 million).
For every child who has "two mommies" or "two daddies", there are 32,000 that have a mommy and daddy. Why is it then that it seems nearly half of all children on TV or in movies are raised by gay parents? From this movie to "Modern Family", time after time, we see this portrayal of a loving gay couple wishing to have a normal family and adopt a child, yet according to actual statistics this arrangement is exceedingly rare. Sometimes, television stations will seek out real life examples of this. Not long ago, CNN had a one-hour program called Gary and Tony Have a Baby.
There seems to be an obsession with showing as many "normal" gay families as possible in order to increase acceptance.
But in this particular case, we can find an ulterior motive. The director of this film, Lisa Cholodenko, is herself in a lesbian relationship. She received an anonymous sperm donation and had a son Calder. She lives with a woman named Wendy Melvoin.
It is unfashionable to question these types of relationships, but let's focus on the children for a few minutes. They are not accessories to a style, or a political statement. They are living, breathing, gifts from God who have a right to know their parents and live in a complementary, loving atmosphere.
Pope going to Castel Gondolfo
The pope will be traveling to Castel Gondolfo outside of Rome to live in his Summer residence. He will have some time to reflect. Have a good well-deserved Summer vacation Pope Benedict.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Basilica of St. John the Baptist Survived Great Fire 118 years ago
Over a century ago, St. John's experience the "Great Fire" which virtually devastated the entire city. An unbelivable series of coincidences occurred to allow the fire to cause near total destruction. One of the few buildings to survive was the Catholic Basilica of St. John the Baptist. Wikipedia has a really good article on the event:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Fire_of_1892
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Fire_of_1892
Mosques in America: Jon Stewart compares Muslims to Christians on the Daily Show
Apparently there were some segments on the news on several channels about Americans being worried that too many mosques were being built. Jon Stewart used that on Wednesday night as his lead story. The concerned Americans felt that Islam did not represent their views and that they should not allow mosques to be built. Some people brought up the point that Muslims (or some) want a separate legal system to apply to them, namely sharia. One of the commentators noted that they are the only group that wants its own set of laws, specific to their religion.
Jon Stewart made fun of this in several ways, mostly comparing our current system with what the Muslims wanted. He implied that Christians already do impose their own morals on the country and gave the example of stores being closed on Sunday, and of gay people not being allowed to marry. I spose he could have also thrown in murder and rape. My point is the the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values. That doesn't mean its citizens cannot be against another group imposing its morals on them. In any event, although the original framework of the laws of the United States may have been based on Judeo-Christian morals, the law is a totally separate entity, which is quite evident. For example, it is legal to get an abortion. Almost all Christian denominations are against this, but it is still legal.
A truly religion-based legal system would take guidance from religious leaders, not politicians. What certain Muslim groups are seeking is the imposition of Sharia Law. In Islam, there is not the concept of separation of religion and state as there is in Christianity. Like when Jesus said Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. That's why you see in Islamic countries, the supreme leader is a religious leader and their laws come directly from Islam. The US ought not create a separate legal system for some of its members.
Jon Stewart also poked fun at the idea that some were upset with the building of new mosques by saying the Mormons did the same thing in Utah 150 years ago. It seems to me most of these settlers were Mormons, so them building a church makes sense. What the news stories focused on was Muslims wanting to build mosques in predominantly Christian areas, even small rural areas.
I do not believe the construction of any religious building should be banned. There is a concept of freedom of religion and this involves implementing the same rules for all people regardless of their religion. It would violate this system if only Christians were allowed to build churches. As I mentioned in another article, how can Christians expect religious freedom in predominantly Muslim countries, if we do not extend the same rights to others.
I think we must also be careful to recognize that not all moral systems are equal. That's moral relativism, and I hear this argument used all the time. People will say "those are your morals, but I have different morals". It seems like all moral codes are equal so we can just pick and choose whatever we want. But this is not the case, it's just an easy cop-out. I believe Christianity represents the best moral code because it contains the truth. Other systems surely can approach it or be the same in some ways, and so they too would contain truth, but I do not believe that just because something can be classified as a moral, it is just as good as any other.
To conclude, Muslims should have the right to build mosques if they will use them just like Christians. We must ensure religious freedom everywhere in the world.
Jon Stewart made fun of this in several ways, mostly comparing our current system with what the Muslims wanted. He implied that Christians already do impose their own morals on the country and gave the example of stores being closed on Sunday, and of gay people not being allowed to marry. I spose he could have also thrown in murder and rape. My point is the the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian values. That doesn't mean its citizens cannot be against another group imposing its morals on them. In any event, although the original framework of the laws of the United States may have been based on Judeo-Christian morals, the law is a totally separate entity, which is quite evident. For example, it is legal to get an abortion. Almost all Christian denominations are against this, but it is still legal.
A truly religion-based legal system would take guidance from religious leaders, not politicians. What certain Muslim groups are seeking is the imposition of Sharia Law. In Islam, there is not the concept of separation of religion and state as there is in Christianity. Like when Jesus said Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. That's why you see in Islamic countries, the supreme leader is a religious leader and their laws come directly from Islam. The US ought not create a separate legal system for some of its members.
Jon Stewart also poked fun at the idea that some were upset with the building of new mosques by saying the Mormons did the same thing in Utah 150 years ago. It seems to me most of these settlers were Mormons, so them building a church makes sense. What the news stories focused on was Muslims wanting to build mosques in predominantly Christian areas, even small rural areas.
I do not believe the construction of any religious building should be banned. There is a concept of freedom of religion and this involves implementing the same rules for all people regardless of their religion. It would violate this system if only Christians were allowed to build churches. As I mentioned in another article, how can Christians expect religious freedom in predominantly Muslim countries, if we do not extend the same rights to others.
I think we must also be careful to recognize that not all moral systems are equal. That's moral relativism, and I hear this argument used all the time. People will say "those are your morals, but I have different morals". It seems like all moral codes are equal so we can just pick and choose whatever we want. But this is not the case, it's just an easy cop-out. I believe Christianity represents the best moral code because it contains the truth. Other systems surely can approach it or be the same in some ways, and so they too would contain truth, but I do not believe that just because something can be classified as a moral, it is just as good as any other.
To conclude, Muslims should have the right to build mosques if they will use them just like Christians. We must ensure religious freedom everywhere in the world.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Are people really supposed to be monogamous?
We hear it all the time: being monogamous goes against our nature. Explanations have been offered for this, including the fact that most other animals are not monogamous, but rather go from one mate to another. Also, we are told it is genetically to our benefit to have relations with as many people as possible in order to ensure the continuation of our genes. This would especially apply to men.
Despite this popular belief, our society has paradoxically affirmed that "cheating" is one of the most serious of crimes. What are we to make of this? Is monogamy really unnatural? Let's consider some evidence.
One of the main considerations I want to make is our psychology. When a man is hungry, his body is telling him he needs food. When someone dies, we grieve as we adjust to their departure and learn to live without them here. Our bodies tell us things. It doesn't sit idly by, it expects to be heard. No different is the case when we break up with a spouse.
Divorce is a devastating situation. It is sad, unfortunate and causes a great deal of anger, depression, and pain. Similarly, cheating causes the same reactions. If going from one partner to another was built into our DNA, why would such pain be cause when we did something so natural? I think the question answers itself.
Divorce has devastating consequences. One study, by the National Institute for Healthcare Research in Rockville, MD, has said that divorced people are three times more likely to commit suicide. Another study, which I cannot quote right now, says for people considering divorce, those who proceed with it are less happy five years later than those who remain in the marriage.
These are not the effects of something natural.
Also, why do we look to other animals to determine our correct course of action? Humans are unique. We may compare ourselves to chimpanzees, but it is common for chimps to attack other groups of chimps, take the young babies, rip them apart and eat them. Do we want to behave this way? No. We are called to a far higher standard.
Despite this popular belief, our society has paradoxically affirmed that "cheating" is one of the most serious of crimes. What are we to make of this? Is monogamy really unnatural? Let's consider some evidence.
One of the main considerations I want to make is our psychology. When a man is hungry, his body is telling him he needs food. When someone dies, we grieve as we adjust to their departure and learn to live without them here. Our bodies tell us things. It doesn't sit idly by, it expects to be heard. No different is the case when we break up with a spouse.
Divorce is a devastating situation. It is sad, unfortunate and causes a great deal of anger, depression, and pain. Similarly, cheating causes the same reactions. If going from one partner to another was built into our DNA, why would such pain be cause when we did something so natural? I think the question answers itself.
Divorce has devastating consequences. One study, by the National Institute for Healthcare Research in Rockville, MD, has said that divorced people are three times more likely to commit suicide. Another study, which I cannot quote right now, says for people considering divorce, those who proceed with it are less happy five years later than those who remain in the marriage.
These are not the effects of something natural.
Also, why do we look to other animals to determine our correct course of action? Humans are unique. We may compare ourselves to chimpanzees, but it is common for chimps to attack other groups of chimps, take the young babies, rip them apart and eat them. Do we want to behave this way? No. We are called to a far higher standard.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Vandalizing Atheist Billboard is Wrong
A group of atheists recently put up a billboard in Charlotte, North Carolina, USA that says "One Nation. Indivisible." It omits "Under God" which typically goes in between those two lines. It's a subtle campaign to remove God from the pledge of allegiance. I'm not American, so when I first saw the sign it didn't strike me that Under God was removed. Someone vandalized the sign by spray-painting "Under God" beneath the two lines with an arrow showing where it should go. I disagree with this act of vandalism. Atheists have a right to put up these billboards if they want. I may disagree with atheists, but I believe they have the right to hold their beliefs.If a Christian put a billboard up that said "Jesus is the answer", I would find it unacceptable for an atheist to spraypaint "not" after is.
Those are arguments from a philosophical point of view regarding freedom of speech. However, I also disagree on a practical level. Spray-painting this sign will only make it more newsworthy and therefore expose the sign to a much greater audience than previously possible. By doing this act of vandalism, the perpetrator is bringing more attention to the ad. Obviously this is not what they intended.
I heard some people bring up the possibility that this was actually done by an atheist to garner more attention. Obviously this would be a dishonest tactic, but we have no evidence of this, so until evidence is revealed, I think we can assume this is not the case.
In some countries, Christians are harshly punished for their beliefs. I believe I heard there are more martyrs now than ever before. Much of the persecution comes from atheist states, such as North Korea. If we believe that Christians should have the right to freedom of speech in these atheist countries, then we must extend freedom of speech to atheists in mostly Christian countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)