Tag Archives: marriage

Answer to Family Breakdown is “Social Fatherhood,” UN Says

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

The cohesion of the American family is about the worst in the world, according to a new UN report. Rather than recommending policies reinforcing traditional family roles, the study recommends social policies reflecting the new reality.

Just 70 percent of American children grow up with both parents, worse than the developed world average of 84 percent. Only Estonian children fare worse. And American marriages fail more than anywhere else except Latvia, the report says.

At the same time, many men around the world desire more children than they have. American men generally desired 2.3 children in 1991 (the last year data was shown), while the U.S. fertility rate was only 1.85. In an example from the developing world, the report finds that men in Benin wanted on average 6 children in 2000, while data from the UN Population Division show that the fertility rate was only 5.79.

This evidence seems to contradict the idea of an “unmet need for family planning” upon which UN agencies base the need for voluntary family planning programs. The United States is the world’s largest donor to international family planning and population programs.

The report also finds that Chile and Ireland have the world’s lowest rates of divorce. These countries also have the world’s lowest maternal mortality rates, according to studies by several UN agencies. The new report does not explicitly correlate its data on intact marriages with better maternal health.

In light of its data on the rising breakdown of marriage and family life, the report seeks policy changes that recognize and support the “evolving role of men in families” including changes to the labor market, family law, health and social services, education and the media.

The report promotes the concept of “social fatherhood,” which “encompasses the care and support of males for children who are not necessarily their biological offspring.”

And it asserts that “the term ‘family’ encompasses a variety of traditional and non-traditional groupings, including heterosexual and homosexual partnerships, biological and social parents and children, polygamous and polygynous relationships, close friends, and other relatives.”

Social conservatives have criticized such definitions as evidence of a glaring disconnect between data that indicate the need to strengthen fatherhood and the family on one hand, and attempts to change the definition of family by activists and some governments, mostly from Europe, on the other.

“Men in Families and Family Policies in a Changing World,” is part of a series of studies resulting from a General Assembly resolution on the Follow-up to the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family which called for supplementing government research to change social policies.

Initial focus of the series was on achieving “equal sharing of domestic responsibilities,” and subsequent reports focused on engaging men in family planning and reproductive health, and determining the parental roles in education of children. The report was funded by the United Nations Trust Fund on Family Activities.

This article was first published in FridayFax by the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) on March 23, 2011.

Why I Signed the Manhattan Declaration

By Gary Palmer

On November 20, 2009 a group of nationally known and respected Christian leaders set forth an historic declaration.

The Manhattan Declaration is a long overdue message from men and women of faith to all those in political power from state and local governments to the federal government and its myriad bureaucracies. The Declaration focuses on three foundational principles of justice and the common good on which the signers will not compromise: the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions; the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

The Declaration states, “Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense.”

Obviously, this is a direct challenge to the power of the government at every level but especially the federal government under the current dominant liberal regime. In an interview with Katherine Lopez of the National Review, Dr. Robert George, one of the principal authors of the Manhattan Declaration, said that important decisions are now being made, or soon will be made, by state and federal government on the issues addressed in the Declaration.

Dr. George said that as a result of the 2006 and 2008 elections there is unprecedented strength in both houses of Congress and in many state legislatures to push laws that advance the abortion agenda, that seek to legalize same-sex marriage, and that threaten religious liberty. In fact, some Christian groups have already come under assault.

In May 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston ended its 103 year ministry of providing adoption services to place foster children rather than comply with the Massachusetts state law that required them to place children with homosexuals. In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is threatening to take action against Belmont Abbey College, a private Catholic college in North Carolina, because the college refuses to include insurance coverage for abortion and contraception in the college’s health insurance plan.

While both of these involve Catholic institutions, they could just as easily be Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or any other denomination.

Lopez later asked Dr. George how the White House should take the Declaration. He responded, “I hope that President Obama will understand that the signatories to the Manhattan Declaration are determined to defend the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage, and respect for religious freedom. On these issues, they cannot compromise, and they will not remain silent.”

The Declaration’s signatories understand that the principles of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and religious freedom are under threat from powerful political and cultural forces in our nation. They want it understood that, as Christians, those who sign the Declaration regard these principles as non-negotiable, and will therefore be unceasing in their defense of them. A critical line of the declaration states, “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.”

In explaining why he signed the Manhattan Declaration, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky wrote that he signed it “…because I want to put my name on its final pledge — that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth — and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.”

Dr. Mohler was referring to the last lines of the Declaration that should be regarded as a solemn oath by all who sign it, “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.” Mohler then added, “I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all.”

The opportunity to stand with other believers of such courage and moral clarity is why I signed the Declaration.

You can read the Manhattan Declaration at www.manhattandeclaration.org.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Economic Recession : Connecting Candidates, Trends, Values and Voting

It’s a Bad Idea to Elect Candidates to Improve the Economy

Encouraging congregants to vote on Tuesday November 4, my pastor shared some very profound insights about how to view the issues. He said that we would be electing people who will be representing our views and our futures. Those we elect will make decision that will not only affect our own lives but our community and out nation He then followed with an insight applicable to all elections for all time.

The economy is constantly changing. The boom and bust cycles will continue no matter who is in office. We should not vote for candidates based on a troubled economy because it will eventually improve anyway.

Adding to his insight, I want to point out that our economy and its free markets are not some mysterious force operating outside the realm of human behavior. The economy is human behavior. The markets are the results of nothing other than human decisions. Intentionally or unintentionally, the problems and benefits of our economy are the results of human behaviors. The boom and bust cycles of our current economy are the results of policy decisions, trade and consumption practices, errors and neglect, as well as greed and irrational fears. Barak Obama and Congressional Democrats blame Bush for their own bad policy decisions and neglect of the mortgage markets that Congress created. And, Bush’s spending didn’t happen without their approval either.

The Obama Connection?

Cliff Kincaid, Editor of the Accuracy in Media Report, wrote an article on who is behind the economic collapse. To appreciate his argument, you must read the entire article. Here, I will try to summarize some of his main evidence to illustrate my point. Kincaid research points to Democrats as the primary actors suspected of generating the current economic crisis of New Deal proportions. His research ties US Treasury Secretary Paulson, who worked for a Democratic firm, Goldman Sachs to leading Democratic Party fundraisers, and to Barak Obama. Those suspected of creating the current economic crisis for political reasons would not be complete without George Soros, who has a reputation for creating national economic crises. Other writers have produced lists of former employees of Goldman Sachs who have filled leading positions in both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Many others are being investigated, according to Kincaid.

Recession and Election Cycle Trends

If I remember correctly, the past four or five presidents were elected during an economic correction sometimes called recession. According to financial expert John Mauldin, President George W. Bush inherited an economy already in recession from Democrat Bill Clinton. Oddly enough, Americans elected Clinton as President in part to solve the recession that occurred during George HW Bush’s term in office. We voted Ronald Reagan into office because of his plans to solve the deep recession inherited from Jimmy Carter. Many Republicans voted for Democrat and Baptist Jimmy Carter because of they believed his faith was real and because of his plan to solve the recession-sized energy crisis. Like my parents, many Republicans were sorely disappointed.

Learning From the Past?

It must be questioned whether the most educated people in the world are capable of learning from the past. It is claimed that many Republicans again favor a Democrat for president. That is certainly their right. Many religious leaders have championed the cause of the Democratic Party its candidates. Again, that is their right. Yet, the Democratic Party is more socialistic, more pro-abortion, more opposed to traditional marriage than ever. Their presidential candidate does have religious credentials. However, the religious aura surrounding Barak Obama is a cloud of illusion. I think it is more of a smoke screen for the sole purpose of winning an election. Whether McCain is sincerely Christian is debatable as well. However, his VP choice at least gives us hope for a strong pro-life and pro-family influence in the Whitehouse.

I return to my original point borrowed from my pastor. Whether economic crises are the result of evil intentions or simply bad decisions, they are the product of human behaviors. They have occurred throughout our nation’s history. As now, they have always been corrected by appropriate behavior and policy decision. This corrective process is already in motion. Therefore, whoever we elect as the next president is mostly irrelevant.

Voting Decisions and Issues of Unchanging Importance

My pastor continued his political exhortation with another and even more important insight. Instead of making our voting decisions based on a continuously changing economy, we would find better representation in government if we made our decisions based on unchanging criteria. Going back to the biblical book of Genesis, he reminded us of source of our moral values, the sanctity of human life, and of human dignity. These are the most important criterion. As history teaches, the decline of morality in societies always results in that society’s end. Therefore, in this pivotal election, we will choose whether morality and the sanctity of life will be upheld and strengthened or whether morality will continue to decline.

Having done my own research, it is clear to me which candidate will defend the life of the unborn, the sanctity of traditional marriage, and the general morality our form of democracy has always required. Like the traditions of their respective parties, Democrat Barak Obama favors abortion and opposes defining marriage as one man and one woman because he supports the politics of sexual immorality. John McCain claims to be pro-life and favors overturning Roe v Wade because it was an erroneous ruling. He supports traditional marriage but believes it’s outside the power of federal government to decide on issues of marriage.

Voting Means Judgments—Of Candidate and Maybe of God

As Americans used to believe regarding disasters whether affecting national, state, and local communities, I too believe America is already experiencing God’s justice for the long official support for every form of immorality, for the brutal slaughter of millions of unborn children, for legitimizing unnatural and harmful behaviors of gays, and for many other crimes against God’s moral laws. If this assessment is correct, then this election is the most important and most pivotal of all elections in American history comparable to the election of Abraham Lincoln.

—————————————————————

(Note: The title of John Mauldin’s financial commentary referenced above presents the insightful and witty perspective of it gifted author; the title is “Electing the Janitor-In-Chief”. Mauldin’s work is profitable reading and can be accessed at his website www.fronlinethoughts.com)