I saw on Yahoo! News yesterday that Celine Dion has given birth to twin boys. The Canadian singer announced her pregnancy earlier this year and has now blessed her husband Rene with two more sons and her son Rene-Charles with two brothers. I'm happy for Ms. Dion and her family, really I am, but I can't help feeling that something's a bit amiss here.
Celine Dion under went six in-vitro fertilization attempts to get pregnant again after having her first child, and I think that's what's bothering me. After already having their own biological child why didn't Celine Dion and her husband simply adopt if they wanted more children? If Celine Dion just wanted to experience pregnancy again she could've adopted embryos--yes, you can do that--and had the unique joy of carrying and giving birth to her adopted child(ren). I know I really don't have the right to second guess anyone's private decisions, but with so many children in this world needing loving homes it just irks me that so many people remain obsessed with having biological kids even after they've already had one.
I remember feeling the same way when the famous McCaughey septuplets were born in 1997. These children were the results of fertility treatments, which would've been understandable if Bobbie McCaughey, their mother, were trying to get pregnant for the first time. But Bobbie and husband Kenny already had a biological daughter, Mikayla. So why, I remember asking myself at the time, didn't they adopt if they wanted more children? Especially since the McCaugheys implied they were devout Christians. I didn't understand then and I don't understand now.
I sympathize with infertile couples. I can understand couples who've never had a baby getting fertility treatments. I can understand them wanting to have the experience of bringing their own child into the world. But once an infertile couple has had their own baby they should consider adoption if they want more children. At the very least, fertility clinics and doctors should give preference to couples who've never had their own child (if they don't do that already).
I'll reiterate what I said at the beginning. I'm happy for Celine Dion and her family. I know that her twins will be well taken care of and well loved. It's just sad that two little babies won't be coming out of an orphanage or a frozen embryo container because Ms. Dion and her husband were more devoted to genetics than parenting. And far too many other people feel the same way. I really, really hope that changes. Parenting is about love not biology. I pray more people realize that.
Showing posts with label Family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family. Show all posts
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Monday, September 7, 2009
Why The Hate?
A few days ago I saw on Yahoo! News that Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar, America's most famous parents, are expecting their 19th--yes, 19th!--baby. I was happy for them but some of the comments I read following the story disturbed me. They were nasty, mean-spirited, hateful. I wouldn't have 19 children myself, and I have expressed dismay that the Duggars didn't adopt a child or two, but I certainly don't hate them. Many people, though, seem to. Why?
As stated above, the Duggars were the targets of some nasty comments. What really struck me was how disconnected from reality some of those comments were. They were rants of blind hate, spoken in total disregard of the fact that they had no basis in fact. The epitome of those rants was the charge that the Duggars were a burden on society. A burden on society?! The Duggars are not and have never been on welfare, so how could they be a burden on society? The claim was that they were a burden because their children had to be educated at taxpayer's expense. Well, the Duggar kids are homeschooled, and even if they attended public school, their parents pay taxes just like everyone else. So, again, how are they a burden on society? Answer: they're not! But that doesn't matter to the people who hate the Duggars. And I ask again, why are they so hated?
I don't think the Duggars are hated because of their super large family. I think the Duggars are hated because of the kind of people they are. The Duggars are White, conservative Christians, and there is a liberal segment of our society that hates such people and does not want to see their numbers increase. Michelle and Jim-Bob Duggar have been called everything from ignorant to homophobic. Can you imagine them being called such things if they were Muslim or Black? Of course not. That would violate the progessive tenet of never criticizing minorities. But it's open season on White Christians.
Well, I want to say I support the Duggars. Yes, I wished they'd adopted a child but I accept that they've chosen to live out their pro-life, Christian beliefs another way. And who knows? Maybe some of their children will adopt. At any rate, the Duggars have done a better job with 18 kids than many "modern" parents have done with only one or two. Maybe that's another reason why the Duggars are so hated. Their success with over a dozen kids makes so many struggling, small-family parents look incompetent. Hmmmmm, hating White Christians AND being made to feel incompetent? That could add up to a potent brew of animosity. Oh wait, it already has.
As stated above, the Duggars were the targets of some nasty comments. What really struck me was how disconnected from reality some of those comments were. They were rants of blind hate, spoken in total disregard of the fact that they had no basis in fact. The epitome of those rants was the charge that the Duggars were a burden on society. A burden on society?! The Duggars are not and have never been on welfare, so how could they be a burden on society? The claim was that they were a burden because their children had to be educated at taxpayer's expense. Well, the Duggar kids are homeschooled, and even if they attended public school, their parents pay taxes just like everyone else. So, again, how are they a burden on society? Answer: they're not! But that doesn't matter to the people who hate the Duggars. And I ask again, why are they so hated?
I don't think the Duggars are hated because of their super large family. I think the Duggars are hated because of the kind of people they are. The Duggars are White, conservative Christians, and there is a liberal segment of our society that hates such people and does not want to see their numbers increase. Michelle and Jim-Bob Duggar have been called everything from ignorant to homophobic. Can you imagine them being called such things if they were Muslim or Black? Of course not. That would violate the progessive tenet of never criticizing minorities. But it's open season on White Christians.
Well, I want to say I support the Duggars. Yes, I wished they'd adopted a child but I accept that they've chosen to live out their pro-life, Christian beliefs another way. And who knows? Maybe some of their children will adopt. At any rate, the Duggars have done a better job with 18 kids than many "modern" parents have done with only one or two. Maybe that's another reason why the Duggars are so hated. Their success with over a dozen kids makes so many struggling, small-family parents look incompetent. Hmmmmm, hating White Christians AND being made to feel incompetent? That could add up to a potent brew of animosity. Oh wait, it already has.
Friday, January 23, 2009
What's In A Name?
If your name is Adolf Hitler Campbell, a lot.
Little Adolf Hitler Campbell shot to notoriety in December when a grocery store refused his parents' request to put his full name on his birthday cake. Heath and Deborah Campbell, Adolf's parents, denied they were racist even though their two other children, both girls, have Nazi inspired names. Now the state of New Jersey, where the Campbells live, has removed Adolf and his sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nations and Honszlynn Hinnler Jeannie, from their parents. Most people seem to think that was a good move; I don't.
The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services seized the Campbell children supposedly because a neighbor accused their parents of abuse and their father of domestic violence. The child welfare agency insists that it would never remove children from their homes just because of their names, but Deborah Campbell believes her children's names are the real problem. I agree.
I've heard the Campbells called unfit and abusive parents for naming their son Adolf Hitler. I believe that naming your child after someone is a way to honor that person. I believe that Heath and Deborah Campbell intended to honor Der Fuhrer with their son's name. I believe they are racists, in spite of their denial. And I believe that giving a child a badly stigmatized name is a socially disasterous move; socially disasterous, though, is NOT the same thing as abusive. And being a racist doesn't automatically make anyone an unfit parent. But the state of New Jersey apparently believes that it does. Whatever their neighbor's accusations, I believe Heath and Deborah Campbell lost custody of their kids because they have beliefs that the state doesn't approve of. Their children's names tipped off the state to those beliefs. This is chilling.
The state has an obligation to protect children from abuse but under no circumstances should the definition of abuse be political. If that happens children become powerful tools the state can use to punish politically incorrect adults. And when child abuse is politicized its prosecution can become highly selective. Does anyone believe, for instance, that the state of New Jersey would dare remove a child named Osama ben Laden from radical Muslim parents? Does anyone believe, even for a second, that the state of New Jersey would dare remove a child named Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, or Pol Pot from Communist parents? We know that would never happen. Muslim civil rights groups and the ACLU would be screaming in the streets and the courts. In the current politically correct climate it's ok to be a radical Muslim or a Communist; it's not ok to be a White racist, supremacist, or separatist. That's why the Campbell children were taken from their parents. And that should terrify everyone because the next "wrong" beliefs could be yours and child protective services could come calling.
Little Adolf Hitler Campbell shot to notoriety in December when a grocery store refused his parents' request to put his full name on his birthday cake. Heath and Deborah Campbell, Adolf's parents, denied they were racist even though their two other children, both girls, have Nazi inspired names. Now the state of New Jersey, where the Campbells live, has removed Adolf and his sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nations and Honszlynn Hinnler Jeannie, from their parents. Most people seem to think that was a good move; I don't.
The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services seized the Campbell children supposedly because a neighbor accused their parents of abuse and their father of domestic violence. The child welfare agency insists that it would never remove children from their homes just because of their names, but Deborah Campbell believes her children's names are the real problem. I agree.
I've heard the Campbells called unfit and abusive parents for naming their son Adolf Hitler. I believe that naming your child after someone is a way to honor that person. I believe that Heath and Deborah Campbell intended to honor Der Fuhrer with their son's name. I believe they are racists, in spite of their denial. And I believe that giving a child a badly stigmatized name is a socially disasterous move; socially disasterous, though, is NOT the same thing as abusive. And being a racist doesn't automatically make anyone an unfit parent. But the state of New Jersey apparently believes that it does. Whatever their neighbor's accusations, I believe Heath and Deborah Campbell lost custody of their kids because they have beliefs that the state doesn't approve of. Their children's names tipped off the state to those beliefs. This is chilling.
The state has an obligation to protect children from abuse but under no circumstances should the definition of abuse be political. If that happens children become powerful tools the state can use to punish politically incorrect adults. And when child abuse is politicized its prosecution can become highly selective. Does anyone believe, for instance, that the state of New Jersey would dare remove a child named Osama ben Laden from radical Muslim parents? Does anyone believe, even for a second, that the state of New Jersey would dare remove a child named Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, or Pol Pot from Communist parents? We know that would never happen. Muslim civil rights groups and the ACLU would be screaming in the streets and the courts. In the current politically correct climate it's ok to be a radical Muslim or a Communist; it's not ok to be a White racist, supremacist, or separatist. That's why the Campbell children were taken from their parents. And that should terrify everyone because the next "wrong" beliefs could be yours and child protective services could come calling.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Congratulations! But...
I heard a few weeks ago that Michelle Duggar, mom to the famous Duggar clan, is pregnant again. This baby will be number eighteen--eighteen!--for Michelle and her husband Jim Bob. I waited a while to write on this subject because I have mixed feelings about it. I'm not against large families; in fact, I think we need more of them. It's just that I feel a little disappointed that Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar never adopted a child. Actually, the Duggars are just one example of what I consider to be a shortcoming among pro-life people, especially Christian pro-life people.
Now, I don't know if the Duggars are pro-life but I think it's safe to assume they are based on their conservative faith and their large family. And pro-lifers always tout adoption as THE alternative to abortion. Yet, so few of us--I say us because I'm part of the problem--seem to do it. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have said they have so many children because they're trusting God with the size of their family; that's great, but why didn't they consider that God might have wanted them to grow their family through adoption?
Being pro-life means, of course, trying to stop abortion. But the result of that is that babies are going to be born, babies who can't always be raised by their biological parents. And far too few pro-lifers are stepping up to the plate to adopt them. Take a look at the average conservative, pro-life, Christian family. It's no bigger than the average liberal, pro-choice, secular family. This tells me that most pro-lifers, religious and secular, aren't living out their professed convictions. A few are, of course.
Terry Meeuwsen, co-host of the 700 Club, has seven children: two biological and five adopted. What makes Ms. Meeuwsen's adoptions interesting is that they are all transracial and/or international. Her last adoption was of three Ukrainian sisters, the youngest of whom was seven or eight at the time. Clearly, Terry Meeuwsen understands that cuddly little babies aren't the only children who need loving homes. Kudos for her.
Another pro-life Christian who is living out his convictions is gospel singer Steven Curtis Chapman. Chapman and his wife Mary Beth added three little Chinese girls to their family of three biological children. After the adoption of their first daughter the Chapmans started the foundation Shoahannah's Hope to financially help others seeking to adopt. Sadly, the Chapmans recently suffered a tragic loss when their youngest adopted daughter, Maria, died after being struck by an SUV. I pray that God will comfort the Chapmans in their grief and maybe guide them to another adoption.
Terry Meeuwsen and Steven Curtis Chapman aren't the only pro-life people adopting children. There are others, of course, just not enough. Think about it. Would there be 500,000 adoptable children languishing in foster care if pro-lifers really took their adoption-is-the-solution conviction seriously? I think not. But maybe lack of conviction isn't the whole problem. Maybe there's a problem with the way most pro-lifers see adoption.
When most pro-life people, espeically the activists, talk of adoption it's almost always in the context of saving unborn babies who are in immediate danger of abortion. Adoption is the alternative offered to desperate women on the verge of aborting their innocent babies. This view of adoption is fine, but it doesn't go far enough. Adoption needs to be seen not just as a means of rescuing the unborn from abortion, but also as a means of rescuing already born children from loveless, familyless lives. And adoption needs to be seen as a way to build families that's as valid as the natural way.
As I said above, the Duggars said they have many children because they're letting God control the size of their family. They don't seem to realize, though, that adoption can be a way for God to grow families. A large family doesn't mean only having many biological children; it simply means having many children, period. And having or, more acurately, raising larger than usual numbers of children is what pro-lifers, especially the Christian ones, should be doing. And at least some of those children should be adopted. It's just hypocritical for it to be otherwise.
I understand not everyone who's pro-life is able to raise children, biological or adopted. Some are elderly; some are teens. Some are disabled; some are financially strapped. And some just don't want kids. But there are others who are fully capable of raising multiple children; they just seem to want all those kids to be their own. They tell women with unplanned pregnancies "Adopt! Adopt!", yet they don't step forward to take in their unwanted babies. This must change. I'm glad the Duggars are expecting a new child, I just wish they were bringing an unwanted baby or a foster child into their loving home. That would be the truly Christian pro-life thing to do.
Now, I don't know if the Duggars are pro-life but I think it's safe to assume they are based on their conservative faith and their large family. And pro-lifers always tout adoption as THE alternative to abortion. Yet, so few of us--I say us because I'm part of the problem--seem to do it. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have said they have so many children because they're trusting God with the size of their family; that's great, but why didn't they consider that God might have wanted them to grow their family through adoption?
Being pro-life means, of course, trying to stop abortion. But the result of that is that babies are going to be born, babies who can't always be raised by their biological parents. And far too few pro-lifers are stepping up to the plate to adopt them. Take a look at the average conservative, pro-life, Christian family. It's no bigger than the average liberal, pro-choice, secular family. This tells me that most pro-lifers, religious and secular, aren't living out their professed convictions. A few are, of course.
Terry Meeuwsen, co-host of the 700 Club, has seven children: two biological and five adopted. What makes Ms. Meeuwsen's adoptions interesting is that they are all transracial and/or international. Her last adoption was of three Ukrainian sisters, the youngest of whom was seven or eight at the time. Clearly, Terry Meeuwsen understands that cuddly little babies aren't the only children who need loving homes. Kudos for her.
Another pro-life Christian who is living out his convictions is gospel singer Steven Curtis Chapman. Chapman and his wife Mary Beth added three little Chinese girls to their family of three biological children. After the adoption of their first daughter the Chapmans started the foundation Shoahannah's Hope to financially help others seeking to adopt. Sadly, the Chapmans recently suffered a tragic loss when their youngest adopted daughter, Maria, died after being struck by an SUV. I pray that God will comfort the Chapmans in their grief and maybe guide them to another adoption.
Terry Meeuwsen and Steven Curtis Chapman aren't the only pro-life people adopting children. There are others, of course, just not enough. Think about it. Would there be 500,000 adoptable children languishing in foster care if pro-lifers really took their adoption-is-the-solution conviction seriously? I think not. But maybe lack of conviction isn't the whole problem. Maybe there's a problem with the way most pro-lifers see adoption.
When most pro-life people, espeically the activists, talk of adoption it's almost always in the context of saving unborn babies who are in immediate danger of abortion. Adoption is the alternative offered to desperate women on the verge of aborting their innocent babies. This view of adoption is fine, but it doesn't go far enough. Adoption needs to be seen not just as a means of rescuing the unborn from abortion, but also as a means of rescuing already born children from loveless, familyless lives. And adoption needs to be seen as a way to build families that's as valid as the natural way.
As I said above, the Duggars said they have many children because they're letting God control the size of their family. They don't seem to realize, though, that adoption can be a way for God to grow families. A large family doesn't mean only having many biological children; it simply means having many children, period. And having or, more acurately, raising larger than usual numbers of children is what pro-lifers, especially the Christian ones, should be doing. And at least some of those children should be adopted. It's just hypocritical for it to be otherwise.
I understand not everyone who's pro-life is able to raise children, biological or adopted. Some are elderly; some are teens. Some are disabled; some are financially strapped. And some just don't want kids. But there are others who are fully capable of raising multiple children; they just seem to want all those kids to be their own. They tell women with unplanned pregnancies "Adopt! Adopt!", yet they don't step forward to take in their unwanted babies. This must change. I'm glad the Duggars are expecting a new child, I just wish they were bringing an unwanted baby or a foster child into their loving home. That would be the truly Christian pro-life thing to do.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
A Happy Mothers' Day After All
Well, Mothers' Day turned out great after all. In fact, it was wonderful. I'm so happy because I didn't expect the day to go well.
Mother's Day actually got off to a bad start Thursday, when the cable tv I'd ordered for Mom for her gift was installed. The cable guy hadn't even left the house when Mom started complaining that the tv's picture wasn't clear. Now, my Mom had been whining for months about how bad the picture quality was on the tv in her bedroom. In fact, she could only get one channel and it was full of lines and snow. Instead of being grateful that she now had multiple line and snow free channels to choose from, she chose to find something wrong. I was hurt and pissed. I felt like cussing my Mom out and then ripping the cable from the wall and tossing it and the tv out the window. I didn't do that, of course. But I sure felt like it.
How could Mom be so ungrateful? That was the question I tearfully posed to my sister when I talked to her on Saturday. Thank God for big sisters! Sis told me not to worry. She said she'd talk to Mom and tell her that if she was that unhappy with cable she would have it taken out. She'd call Mom's bluff which would almost certainly shut her up. I felt better and actually started looking forward to Sunday. I'm glad I did.
When Mother's Day arrived I was in a good mood and it only got better. The weather was GORGEOUS. Mom loved the card I gave her. Sis came over and we took Mom to a place called Weston Gardens. We all had fun looking at the different plants, flowers, and sculptures there. There was also live harp music and lots of different types of herbal teas to try. All mothers got to get a free plant. Mom chose a begonia. We really had a great time and I can't wait to go back.
After the trip to Weston Gardens Mom, my uncle, and I went to the cemetary to put flowers on the graves of my grandparents, uncle, and Dad. I hadn't planned on going but I decided to go so I could spend time with my uncle. Mom had chosen some really pretty flowers for the graves and she arranged them quite well. Personally, I've moved past the need to visit my loved ones' graves and worry about how they look, but that's still important to Mom and it was sweet to see her taking such care to make the flowers look just right. When she was finished the graves looked great and I was happy I'd gone to the cemetary with Mom and Uncle.
Finally, Mom and I went out to eat at her favorite restaurant. We both enjoyed our meal and came home quite satisfied. Later, when Mom was in bed, she told me that she had enjoyed me on all the outings we'd had. I was really touched, and a little surprised, and I told Mom I had enjoyed her, too. And that was the truth.
Oh, and the cable tv? Sis did what she'd told me she would do. She called Mom's bluff and suddenly the picture was fine. Like I said, thank God for big sisters. And thank God for a truly happy Mother's Day.
Mother's Day actually got off to a bad start Thursday, when the cable tv I'd ordered for Mom for her gift was installed. The cable guy hadn't even left the house when Mom started complaining that the tv's picture wasn't clear. Now, my Mom had been whining for months about how bad the picture quality was on the tv in her bedroom. In fact, she could only get one channel and it was full of lines and snow. Instead of being grateful that she now had multiple line and snow free channels to choose from, she chose to find something wrong. I was hurt and pissed. I felt like cussing my Mom out and then ripping the cable from the wall and tossing it and the tv out the window. I didn't do that, of course. But I sure felt like it.
How could Mom be so ungrateful? That was the question I tearfully posed to my sister when I talked to her on Saturday. Thank God for big sisters! Sis told me not to worry. She said she'd talk to Mom and tell her that if she was that unhappy with cable she would have it taken out. She'd call Mom's bluff which would almost certainly shut her up. I felt better and actually started looking forward to Sunday. I'm glad I did.
When Mother's Day arrived I was in a good mood and it only got better. The weather was GORGEOUS. Mom loved the card I gave her. Sis came over and we took Mom to a place called Weston Gardens. We all had fun looking at the different plants, flowers, and sculptures there. There was also live harp music and lots of different types of herbal teas to try. All mothers got to get a free plant. Mom chose a begonia. We really had a great time and I can't wait to go back.
After the trip to Weston Gardens Mom, my uncle, and I went to the cemetary to put flowers on the graves of my grandparents, uncle, and Dad. I hadn't planned on going but I decided to go so I could spend time with my uncle. Mom had chosen some really pretty flowers for the graves and she arranged them quite well. Personally, I've moved past the need to visit my loved ones' graves and worry about how they look, but that's still important to Mom and it was sweet to see her taking such care to make the flowers look just right. When she was finished the graves looked great and I was happy I'd gone to the cemetary with Mom and Uncle.
Finally, Mom and I went out to eat at her favorite restaurant. We both enjoyed our meal and came home quite satisfied. Later, when Mom was in bed, she told me that she had enjoyed me on all the outings we'd had. I was really touched, and a little surprised, and I told Mom I had enjoyed her, too. And that was the truth.
Oh, and the cable tv? Sis did what she'd told me she would do. She called Mom's bluff and suddenly the picture was fine. Like I said, thank God for big sisters. And thank God for a truly happy Mother's Day.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
In Defense Of Large Families
I believe it's high time that we in the West get over our love affair with infertility and start to once again appreciate and celebrate large families. I don't mean that everyone has to go out and have 10 kids. I DO mean that our culture needs to once again see children as blessings from God rather than as time consuming, figure destroying, money draining headaches, as it does now. I've been coming to this belief for several years but it crystallized in my mind several months ago when I read a disparaging article on the Duggar family of Arkansas, perhaps the most famous large--and I mean large!--family in the world.
The article, obviously written by an embittered liberal, moaned that the then 16 Duggar children were attention deprived, disparaged the family's Christian faith, and accused them of being homophobic. All because the Duggars dared to go against the "progressive" optimal family size. It never occurred to the author of that bigoted article that the Duggars and other large families may be doing the world some good.
Imagine seeing this bumper sticker on someone's car as you're driving down the street: Save the Earth! Stop socialized medicine! Now what, you may be asking, does socialized medicine and saving the earth have to do with defending large families? Well, "progressives" have been preaching for decades about the threat (supposed) overpopulation poses to the environment. These are the same people who also advocate for government welfare programs paid for by taxpayers. Yet the fewer children you have the fewer taxpayers you have. See the catch-22?
"Progressives" want zero population growth (ZPG) to protect the earth and its resources but they also want a nanny state, i.e. socialism, that can only survive with a Catholic birthrate, as author Mark Steyn put it. Many "progressives" who acknowledge the inconsistency tout immigration as the solution. But that still means increasing the population, at least in a given country or region. And if you must increase the population why not do it naturally rather than importing foreigners? After all, if those foreigners adopt "progressive" ideas they'll start having fewer babies, too. Then where will Western countries get the people they'll need to sustain their nanny states?
The only solution is to admit that we can't have it both ways. If we want fewer and fewer people in order to protect the environment we must be willling to forego the "free" state services provided by taxing workers and consumers, i.e. people. Hence the bumper sticker mentioned above. Of course, the vast majority of "progressives" will never agree to this. They'll continue to dogmatically insist on both ZPG and socialism. They'll continue to hysterically denounce large families like the Duggars even though they're providing the resource the "progressive's" socialist utopia needs most: children. But maybe those children, raised in self-reliant Christian families, will spell the end of the "progressives'" unsustainable dream and herald the coming of a saner world where both children and the earth are loved.
The article, obviously written by an embittered liberal, moaned that the then 16 Duggar children were attention deprived, disparaged the family's Christian faith, and accused them of being homophobic. All because the Duggars dared to go against the "progressive" optimal family size. It never occurred to the author of that bigoted article that the Duggars and other large families may be doing the world some good.
Imagine seeing this bumper sticker on someone's car as you're driving down the street: Save the Earth! Stop socialized medicine! Now what, you may be asking, does socialized medicine and saving the earth have to do with defending large families? Well, "progressives" have been preaching for decades about the threat (supposed) overpopulation poses to the environment. These are the same people who also advocate for government welfare programs paid for by taxpayers. Yet the fewer children you have the fewer taxpayers you have. See the catch-22?
"Progressives" want zero population growth (ZPG) to protect the earth and its resources but they also want a nanny state, i.e. socialism, that can only survive with a Catholic birthrate, as author Mark Steyn put it. Many "progressives" who acknowledge the inconsistency tout immigration as the solution. But that still means increasing the population, at least in a given country or region. And if you must increase the population why not do it naturally rather than importing foreigners? After all, if those foreigners adopt "progressive" ideas they'll start having fewer babies, too. Then where will Western countries get the people they'll need to sustain their nanny states?
The only solution is to admit that we can't have it both ways. If we want fewer and fewer people in order to protect the environment we must be willling to forego the "free" state services provided by taxing workers and consumers, i.e. people. Hence the bumper sticker mentioned above. Of course, the vast majority of "progressives" will never agree to this. They'll continue to dogmatically insist on both ZPG and socialism. They'll continue to hysterically denounce large families like the Duggars even though they're providing the resource the "progressive's" socialist utopia needs most: children. But maybe those children, raised in self-reliant Christian families, will spell the end of the "progressives'" unsustainable dream and herald the coming of a saner world where both children and the earth are loved.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Let's Legalize Polygamy
I support polygamy. I probably wouldn't practice it myself but I believe it should be legal for anyone who wishes to marry that way. There, I said it. This may seem like a strange thing to advocate on a blog dedicated to family values, but here me out.
Most people, at least most Westerners, have a visceral dislike of polygamy. Through media reports and feminist propaganda we've come to regard polygamy as a singularly destructive force, fundamentally oppressive to women. While millions in our country can fathom two men or two women marrying, the thought of one man having two or more wives is just repugnant. It shouldn't be that way.
Polygamy has a long and venerable history. It has been practiced on all continents, among all races, and in all religions. We in the Judeo-Christian West mistakenly believe that the Bible condemns plural marriage but that is not so. Most of the Old Testament Patriarchs, prophets, and kings had multiple wives with no reprimand from God. The Mosaic Law regulates polygamy but does not forbid it. True, the New Testament commands Church leaders to have only one wife, but that prohibition doesn't necessarily apply to the whole Christian community. Indeed, the very fact that Church leaders are allowed only one wife suggests that polygamy was common among first century Christians. After all, why make the "one wife" rule if monogamy was the sole form of Christian marriage?
Devout Jews, Christians, and others who draw their morality from the Bible can support plural marriage in good conscience. It is not solely the practice of fundamentalist Mormons hell bent on suppressing women. Many non-Mormon women, as well as men, can and do enter into polgamy of their own free will, with the intention of creating loving marriages and strong families. Why should they be subjected to legal and/or moral sanction for a marriage that is heterosexual and of their own choosing?
Besides, our sanction against polygamy is profoundly hypocritical. We are a society that boasts of our sexual tolerance. We accept promiscuity as normal, even teaching it to our children. Pornography is a multibillion dollar business. Homosexuality is openly practiced. We tolerate a destructive "subpolygamy" where men procreate with multiple women with no legal or financial committment to them or their children. We wink at adultery and laugh at Hugh Hefner having three live in girlfriends, but God forbid he should have three wives!
God forbid that a man should bind himself to two or more women in a formal commitment, pledging to them love, loyalty, and support. God forbid that a man should be a father to their children, eagerly embracing the financial as well as emotional demands of that role. God forbid that two or more women should lovingly help each other in the mothering of their children. God forbid that a man and two or more women should commit themselves to creating a stable family unit where bedrock values such as love, responsibility, faith, and hard work are diligently taught to the next generation. God forbid!
It's time to rise above our knee jerk disdain for plural marriage. We must admit that we have to accept polygamy along with the other non-traditional families we're so quick to celebrate. It's all about diversity, right? And polygamy has at least the potential to give children a far more constructive upbringing than some of the other alternative families most of us have no problem with. In the end we can't have it both ways. If we reject polygamy then we must also stop watching The Girls Next Door. Honesty and common sense demand it.
Most people, at least most Westerners, have a visceral dislike of polygamy. Through media reports and feminist propaganda we've come to regard polygamy as a singularly destructive force, fundamentally oppressive to women. While millions in our country can fathom two men or two women marrying, the thought of one man having two or more wives is just repugnant. It shouldn't be that way.
Polygamy has a long and venerable history. It has been practiced on all continents, among all races, and in all religions. We in the Judeo-Christian West mistakenly believe that the Bible condemns plural marriage but that is not so. Most of the Old Testament Patriarchs, prophets, and kings had multiple wives with no reprimand from God. The Mosaic Law regulates polygamy but does not forbid it. True, the New Testament commands Church leaders to have only one wife, but that prohibition doesn't necessarily apply to the whole Christian community. Indeed, the very fact that Church leaders are allowed only one wife suggests that polygamy was common among first century Christians. After all, why make the "one wife" rule if monogamy was the sole form of Christian marriage?
Devout Jews, Christians, and others who draw their morality from the Bible can support plural marriage in good conscience. It is not solely the practice of fundamentalist Mormons hell bent on suppressing women. Many non-Mormon women, as well as men, can and do enter into polgamy of their own free will, with the intention of creating loving marriages and strong families. Why should they be subjected to legal and/or moral sanction for a marriage that is heterosexual and of their own choosing?
Besides, our sanction against polygamy is profoundly hypocritical. We are a society that boasts of our sexual tolerance. We accept promiscuity as normal, even teaching it to our children. Pornography is a multibillion dollar business. Homosexuality is openly practiced. We tolerate a destructive "subpolygamy" where men procreate with multiple women with no legal or financial committment to them or their children. We wink at adultery and laugh at Hugh Hefner having three live in girlfriends, but God forbid he should have three wives!
God forbid that a man should bind himself to two or more women in a formal commitment, pledging to them love, loyalty, and support. God forbid that a man should be a father to their children, eagerly embracing the financial as well as emotional demands of that role. God forbid that two or more women should lovingly help each other in the mothering of their children. God forbid that a man and two or more women should commit themselves to creating a stable family unit where bedrock values such as love, responsibility, faith, and hard work are diligently taught to the next generation. God forbid!
It's time to rise above our knee jerk disdain for plural marriage. We must admit that we have to accept polygamy along with the other non-traditional families we're so quick to celebrate. It's all about diversity, right? And polygamy has at least the potential to give children a far more constructive upbringing than some of the other alternative families most of us have no problem with. In the end we can't have it both ways. If we reject polygamy then we must also stop watching The Girls Next Door. Honesty and common sense demand it.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Boundaries
Families can be heavenly...or they can be hell. I think one of the things that makes living and dealing with our families difficult is the absence of boundaries. All relationships need boundaries. They help us to respect each other, which is vital in healthy relationships. Many of us seem to forget that, though, when it comes to our families.
Bosses, co-workers, neighbors, friends, even strangers are often treated better by us than our families are. But why? Because we know and respect the boundaries of non-family members. If our neighbor's son mows our lawn we pay him that day, not weeks later. If our friend babysits our child we pick up the baby on time, not hours later. Very often we don't show the same curtesy to family.
There's an old saying, familiarity breeds contempt. I don't think most of us hold our families in contempt, but I do think we take them for granted and have an attitude of entitlement toward them. We often view our family members as people who exist to provide free services for us. This usually isn't done maliciously but the consequences can be ugly nonetheless.
Our families are not here just to serve us. They have their own needs, lives, and responsibilities. Treating our family members with respect can go a long way to creating family harmony. We respect our family members by respecting their boundaries. If our sister-in-law doesn't approve of smoking we won't do it in her house. If Uncle Frank isn't religious we won't pester him to come to church. If we leave the kids with Mom we'll get them at 6 as we promised. And we won't presume that Mom will always be there to babysit.
Our families should mean more to us than anyone else. Our relationship with them should be paramount. Love alone, though, doesn't make relationships successful. Respect is the vital ingredient for family happiness that is so often missing. Giving our family members even a little of it can go a long way. And that's what boundaries are really all about: respect, love, and happiness.
Bosses, co-workers, neighbors, friends, even strangers are often treated better by us than our families are. But why? Because we know and respect the boundaries of non-family members. If our neighbor's son mows our lawn we pay him that day, not weeks later. If our friend babysits our child we pick up the baby on time, not hours later. Very often we don't show the same curtesy to family.
There's an old saying, familiarity breeds contempt. I don't think most of us hold our families in contempt, but I do think we take them for granted and have an attitude of entitlement toward them. We often view our family members as people who exist to provide free services for us. This usually isn't done maliciously but the consequences can be ugly nonetheless.
Our families are not here just to serve us. They have their own needs, lives, and responsibilities. Treating our family members with respect can go a long way to creating family harmony. We respect our family members by respecting their boundaries. If our sister-in-law doesn't approve of smoking we won't do it in her house. If Uncle Frank isn't religious we won't pester him to come to church. If we leave the kids with Mom we'll get them at 6 as we promised. And we won't presume that Mom will always be there to babysit.
Our families should mean more to us than anyone else. Our relationship with them should be paramount. Love alone, though, doesn't make relationships successful. Respect is the vital ingredient for family happiness that is so often missing. Giving our family members even a little of it can go a long way. And that's what boundaries are really all about: respect, love, and happiness.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Just What Do You Mean "Family"?
Unless you've been living under a rock for the last 30 years, you know that the American family has undergone a lot of change, much of it painful. In many ways our society has become weaker due to this familial transformation. The family has become a heated topic, difficult to discuss because we no longer have a cultural consensus on what "family" even means. Therefore, I want my readers to know what I mean when I say family.
By "family" I mean the traditional family: mom, dad, and kids. I mean that because I have a conservative, Judeo-Christian worldview, even though I'm unchurched. I'm sure I've just turned off a lot of people, but try to be open minded. Yes, I believe in the traditional family, but that doesn't mean you can predict where I stand on every familial issue. Some of my views will probably surprise and/or anger conservatives as well as liberals. But I didn't start Home Fires to anger or offend anyone. I started it because I wanted to discuss my views on the family and express some of my concerns about the state of the family in modern America. If I offend anyone I apologize in advance.
To reiterate, I support the traditional family structure of mom, dad, and kids. I believe this structure is the best. Why? Because it's the family form outlined in the book of Genesis where it says, "For this cause[the cause of God making Man male and female], a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh." This verse has been the foundation of Western civilization's understanding of marriage and the family for over a millenium. I believe that the farther we get from Genesis' familial plan the worse off our culture will become.
The above verse establishes what we call the nuclear family as the foundation of society. A man is to leave his parents, cleave to his wife, and begin the creation of a new family unit. I don't think this means that newly married couples must always live apart from their parents. Sometimes that just isn't feasible. It does mean, I think, that the new marriage must be respected by society as a nascent family unit independent of and equal to the family units bride and groom came from. From the new marriage a new family--mother, father, and children--emerges.
I believe that the verse in Genesis establishes marriage and the family as heterosexual institutions. A MAN is to cleave to his WIFE, not to his wife or male lover. Homosexual unions do not have the blessings of God and for centuries didn't have the blessings of the civil authoritites, either. Does this mean that gay people should be treated like dirt? Of course not. It just means that homosexual unions are outside the definition of family, just as incestuous and adulterous heterosexual unions are outside the definition of family. Having a societal consensus on what constitues a family is not a license to abuse anyone. Personally, I'd rather live next door to a nice gay couple than a straight adulterer or incest practitioner.
If you notice, I used the phrase "marriage and the family" in the paragraphs above. I did that on purpose. Just as I believe that the nuclear family is the foundation of society, so I believe that marriage is the foundation of the family, BUT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FAMILY BY ITSELF. A married couple is a married couple, not a family. The birth of children is what turns a marriage into a family. As I said, family means mother, father, AND children. Again, I know I've offended many people and again, I apologize. I just believe there IS an objective familial norm, given to us by God, that all people should acknowledge and strive to achieve. And what do I think of "alternative" families? Where do they fit into my view of life? Those are subjects for other posts. For now you know just what I mean when I say "family".
By "family" I mean the traditional family: mom, dad, and kids. I mean that because I have a conservative, Judeo-Christian worldview, even though I'm unchurched. I'm sure I've just turned off a lot of people, but try to be open minded. Yes, I believe in the traditional family, but that doesn't mean you can predict where I stand on every familial issue. Some of my views will probably surprise and/or anger conservatives as well as liberals. But I didn't start Home Fires to anger or offend anyone. I started it because I wanted to discuss my views on the family and express some of my concerns about the state of the family in modern America. If I offend anyone I apologize in advance.
To reiterate, I support the traditional family structure of mom, dad, and kids. I believe this structure is the best. Why? Because it's the family form outlined in the book of Genesis where it says, "For this cause[the cause of God making Man male and female], a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh." This verse has been the foundation of Western civilization's understanding of marriage and the family for over a millenium. I believe that the farther we get from Genesis' familial plan the worse off our culture will become.
The above verse establishes what we call the nuclear family as the foundation of society. A man is to leave his parents, cleave to his wife, and begin the creation of a new family unit. I don't think this means that newly married couples must always live apart from their parents. Sometimes that just isn't feasible. It does mean, I think, that the new marriage must be respected by society as a nascent family unit independent of and equal to the family units bride and groom came from. From the new marriage a new family--mother, father, and children--emerges.
I believe that the verse in Genesis establishes marriage and the family as heterosexual institutions. A MAN is to cleave to his WIFE, not to his wife or male lover. Homosexual unions do not have the blessings of God and for centuries didn't have the blessings of the civil authoritites, either. Does this mean that gay people should be treated like dirt? Of course not. It just means that homosexual unions are outside the definition of family, just as incestuous and adulterous heterosexual unions are outside the definition of family. Having a societal consensus on what constitues a family is not a license to abuse anyone. Personally, I'd rather live next door to a nice gay couple than a straight adulterer or incest practitioner.
If you notice, I used the phrase "marriage and the family" in the paragraphs above. I did that on purpose. Just as I believe that the nuclear family is the foundation of society, so I believe that marriage is the foundation of the family, BUT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FAMILY BY ITSELF. A married couple is a married couple, not a family. The birth of children is what turns a marriage into a family. As I said, family means mother, father, AND children. Again, I know I've offended many people and again, I apologize. I just believe there IS an objective familial norm, given to us by God, that all people should acknowledge and strive to achieve. And what do I think of "alternative" families? Where do they fit into my view of life? Those are subjects for other posts. For now you know just what I mean when I say "family".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
