Souls in Transition: notes on a book by Christian Smith

I have recently read the book by the above title, which has some important things to say about our American culture. This book presents a study of what happens to the religious and social orientation and characteristics of people transitioning into adulthood from adolescence—it looks at people between the ages of 18-23 (hereafter called "emerging adults"). Following is my redaction of a significant message from this book:

It seems difficult, if not impossible, in this world for emerging adults to actually believe anything objectively real or true that can be rationally maintained in a way that might require people to change their minds or lives. Truth and reality are considered unreal facts in the world of emerging adults. For them, all knowledge and value are historically conditioned and culturally relative. Emerging adults have not been equipped with adequate intellectual and moral tools to evaluate the facts of culture/society, so…they just rely on how they feel about their world and do not worry about making any kind of impact on culture. And…as a result, they do not criticize anything that other people choose to believe, feel, or do. One way of life, for them, is just as good as any other way of life. Everything to them is relative, anyway. They will not risk being rude, presumptuous, intolerant, or unfeeling.

All of the above encourages the true virtues of humility and openness to difference. This is, after all, a good quality; but it hamstrings them from being able to decide what is right, good, and true. This leaves them uncertain about basic values; and, therefore, they are suffering from a troubling uncertainty about life’s big questions—they are adrift in a very complex world without guideposts. Some of them might want to move forward, but they feel paralyzed, not knowing how they might possibly know anything worthy of conviction and dedication. A lot of this fuzziness in life’s questions has been fostered by academia’s penchant for deconstructive postmodernism, which has sought to reduce all knowledge and value claims to arbitrary exertions of power and control. The glut of information on the Internet causes a lack of authorized gatekeepers to judge, evaluate and rank the merits or value of excess data.

Emerging adults struggle to establish themselves as autonomous and sovereign individuals, with unfettered freedom. The problem is, however, that they do not know what to do with their freedom; they lack conviction and direction. They lack larger visions of what is true and real and good in both the private and the public realms. One thing that hampers them from resolving their dilemma is a slavish obsession imposed on them by the culture driving them to establish private, material, comfort and personal possessions—this seems to be a key purpose in their lives.

Some, but not all, emerging adults spend their undirected lives in the amusements of alcohol and drug intoxication, and the temporary thrills of hook-up sex; but many of them have found these activities unsatisfying and dangerous. Some of them are looking for something more meaningful; but they have great difficulty finding it in their worlds. Thus ends the redaction part of this post.

Well…if any of my readers are interested in knowing more about this very interesting group of Americans, I can strongly recommend the above book. Thanks for reading!

Souls in Transition by Christian Smith

I have been reading a book about Americans after high school and before they assume full adult function and responsibility. I think this is a land mark book to help us understand the confusing world in which we live.

This book presents a study of what happens to the religious and social orientation and characteristics of people transitioning into adulthood from adolescence—it looks at people at the age of 18-23.

The book notes that there are four new determining factors in the development of young people during these years—factors that have not been present in America previously:
a. The dramatic growth of higher education.
b. Delay of marriage.
c. Changes in the American and global economy that undermine stable, lifelong careers and replace them with lower job security, frequent job changes, and an ongoing need to approach careers with a variety of skills, maximal flexibility and readiness to retool as needed.
d. Parental willingness to extend the educational careers of their children even into the 30’s with monetary subsidies. It is the average behavior of parents of this age group to spend $38,340 on each child over the 17 year period from 18 to 34 in order to help them accommodate to adult requirements.

The features marking this stage of emerging adulthood are intense identity exploration, instability, a focus on self, feeling in limbo or in transition or in between, and a sense of possibilities, opportunities, and unparalleled hope. These are often accompanied by feelings of transience, confusion, anxiety, self-obsession, melodrama, conflict, disappointment, and sometimes emotional devastation.

Coming Apart—The State Of White America

Charles Murray has written an important book with the above title. This book has received 3 top level reviews lately, 2 in the Wall Street Journal and 1 in the New York Times.

The book describes the development of two, here to fore, new classes of people in White America, i.e., the new upper class and the new lower class. I’ll make some comments on the new upper class in this blog post.

The new upper class is a group of people who were selected out of the upper middle class by their superior intelligence and by their elite educations at premier universities, such as Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Wellesley, etc. These people are the upper level of our present day movers and shakers in government, business, communications, and education. They are the drivers of the new and important cultural, financial, and social changes we see in our country. They were raised in homes of very affluent parents and born into the baby boom generation.

One characteristic of this new class of people is their isolation from mainstream America. They do not participate in the activities of ordinary Americans to a great extent. They make much more money; they live in their own residential compounds, mostly in the neighborhood of New York, Washington, San Francisco, and Los Angeles; they maintain stable families; they do not smoke; they take different vacations from ordinary Americans; they exercise a lot; they are not overweight; etc., etc.

We have a lot of things in our lives for which we can thank this new upper class. They are the innovators of most of the good material things we have in our lives, e.g., advances in technology and medicine. While the author accurately describes this new upper class of Americans, he fails to assess the value of spiritual life they manifest.

I would imagine that when God looks at this group of overeducated, elitist, snobs, He might not have a very rosy appreciation of them. Nevertheless, they are with us; and we had better understand them—they control our lives more than we, perhaps, know.

Divorce In Old Age—Getting More and More Common

Divorce in America spiked in incidence in the 1980’s and has been decreasing since then. However, the story is different for old people—their divorce rate is increasing. In 1990, only one in 10 who got divorced was 50 or older, but by 2009, the number was roughly one in four.

Infidelity is stated as the cause of 27% of divorces in the elderly; and that is the same as for all divorces in general. Women are the ones in marriages seeking the split—they file for divorce 66% of the time.

One must wonder—what could be the reason for these elderly people seeking divorce? To answer this question, it is useful to look at the reason they got married in the first place. Before World War II, I am told that people got married primarily for “economic” reasons. My own parents married in 1934; and they told me that was the reason they married. I am not sure what “economic” reasons are; but I assume that they thought they could cope better money-wise if they divided the work of raising a family and supporting themselves. In the decades of the 50’s and 60’s, sociologists say that spouses married for reasons defined by the degree to which each spouse could fulfill his or her role. Husbands were measured by their prowess as providers and wives by their skills in homemaking and motherhood. Whatever the reasons for these older marriages, the partners respected one another and did their best to help and support one another in the partnership. These marriages held tightly together for the most part.

After 1970, however, I believe that people got married for different reasons. These marriage partners were baby boomers who set much higher expectations on self-actualization. They saw marriage as a way to develop their personal skills and professional advancement in various ways. Their emphases were not on building up one another—they sought to advance themselves! This was the “Me Generation.” That idea has finally come home to roost. Marriages built on a desire to advance oneself will not last—stable marriages will only be established by people bent on helping the other member of the arrangement.

If you are interested in following this idea further, I would suggest that you look at http://on.wsj.com/wF6HrH.

Where Are All the Good Young Men and Women?

Kay Hymowitz has written a book called “Manning Up,” in which she decries the tendency in America for young men to, more and more, be irresponsible, couch potatoes who look only for sex at the local singles bar. They do not want to settle down and support a family with the conventional wife and children. They seem to have entered a stage of life, which she calls “pre-adulthood.” To young women looking for a good husband, the typical young man looks more like an overgrown and aged fraternity boy. They often get money from their parents and spend a lot of their time playing video games and watching spectator sports.

Statistics on this age group shows that they are marrying later and later in life—the mean age for marriage is now 27.5 years for men; in 1980, it was 23. (For women, the mean age of marriage is 25; in 1980, it was 20.) Many people are not even getting married; among both sexes, 53% of all people in the age group of 25-29 have never been married. Men are not even bothering to get a college degree to the same extent as women (26% of men now get bachelor’s degrees; 33% of women get bachelor’s degrees in the United States.).

Relatively affluent, free of family responsibilities, and entertained by an array of media devoted to his every pleasure, the single young man can live in pig heaven—and often does. Women put up with him for a while, but then in fear and disgust give up on any idea of a husband and kids. This rational choice on the part of women only serves to legitimize men's attachment to the sand box. Why should they grow up? No one needs them anyway. There's nothing they have to do.

I lay, at least part of this problem, at the foot of the feminist movement. Women have become so apparently independent of men that men do not feel called to take care of women as they did in the past. And…they can get all the sex they want at the local bar. So, why should these lazy and worthless men tie themselves down with family responsibilities?

They might just as well have another beer.

This whole bad scene demonstrates what happens to legitimate manhood and womanhood when the Christian principles of the Bible are ignored and sinful mankind goes his own way.
If you are interested in following this question further, I refer you to http://on.wsj.com/z1dXvn.

We Won’t Stop Until We Kill!

How should young teen-aged girls act? Well…you probably think they should be kind, polite, gentle, and considerate of others. I certainly agree with that kind of mind-picture of acceptable teen behavior. However, it is not always the way things work out in the real world.

Nancy and I have recently moved to a near western suburb of Cleveland, Ohio; and we work in a Christian tutoring program in the inner city of Cleveland; we teach reading skills using the Bible as a text. We serve a population of mostly second-generation African immigrant children. Last week a fight broke out in our classroom between two groups of young teen-aged girls. The weapons used were yelling, pushing, shoving, scratching, hair-pulling and flying fists. Over the ensuing week, one of the groups visited the homes of the other group and left graffiti on their doors and homes. Vile images, words, and threats were painted on the doors. One remark that appeared was, “We won’t stop until we kill!” The whole experience reminded us of the society where we lived in inner city Detroit 15 years ago. It is the picture of the typical rust belt, socially deteriorating, American city.

This kind of experience causes one to think. Hmmm…I wonder if even the Spirit of Christ can penetrate such social and psychological darkness. I wonder how much more liberal immigration policy America can tolerate before our whole society disintegrates into a violent maelstrom of destructiveness. What can we, as Christians, do to stem the tide of such social and spiritual chaos?

Well, I don’t think that Christ is helpless in this situation. I have faith that even out of this violence, hope can spring. But, we, Christians, absolutely must respond to this kind of destructiveness and social/spiritual darkness. We have to tend to these cities and do what we can do to counter such confusion of values and behavior. Please pray with us that Christ and His Spirit may reach the neighborhood where Nancy and I work. HE IS ABLE!!

What’s Changed in America Since the Revolution?

Of course, many things have changed in America—technical things come instantly to mind. But the things that come to my mind as most important, are the things having to do with the basic attitudes, values, and abilities of our people. As an example, many have commented on the difference between the beliefs, purposes, and values between the founding fathers and the present day politicians who run our United States.

Many books are in print, which would seek to tell us that the founders of America were self-seeking bigots who had no altruistic purposes in mind when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. The books propounding these views began to appear in 1896 in an essay called “The Political Depravity of the Founding Fathers,” by John Bach McMaster. These books and writings continued for more than a century and seriously called into question even the things we take for granted about the founders’ desire to seek the democratic will of the people in establishing a representative form of government. In particular, many writers have claimed that the founders were not Christian to any great extent. They are said to have established a government completely separate from Christian faith and practice.

On the other hand, writings are in print, which tend to paint the founding fathers as near perfect, demigods with only the good of the country at heart. The truth is somewhere between these two extremes.

Gordon Wood, a professor of history at Brown University has written a book entitled "Revolutionary Characters, What Made the Founders Different." In that book, he points out that the founding fathers of our country were strongly influenced by the culture and the intellectual forces of their day. They were sons of the enlightenment. They sought to establish a country where freedom would prevail and where civil society would rein without hostile and harmful influences to destroy the hopes and aspirations of men and women of good intention. They appealed to reason as a foundational building block. They were always aware of a higher law than the "natural law" or "common law" of their day,i.e., the implicit and explicit laws of the Bible. . They strove to epitomize good manners and good faith among their co-workers in this project of establishing a new nation. For the most part, they would act in a respectable and honorable way toward those around them; and they always tried to leave the impression of being gentlemen in their actions.

The American founders knew well that the polite and sophisticated metropolitan center of the empire was steeped in luxury and corruption. England had sprawling, poverty-ridden cities, over refined manners, gross inequalities of rank, complex divisions of labor, and widespread manufacturing of luxuries, all symptoms of over-advanced social development and social decay. It was said of this society by Samuel Stanhope of Princeton University, “that human society can advance only to a certain point before it becomes corrupted, and begins to decline.” To many, England in the 1760’s and 1770’s seemed to be on the verge of dissolution. The North American colonists who came in direct contact with London were shocked at the notorious ways in which hundreds of thousands of pounds were being spent to buy elections. This “most unbounded licentiousness and utter disregard of virtue” could only end, as it had always had in history, in the destruction of the British Empire. The American founding fathers wanted with all their heart and energy to avoid such a society.

As a result of this motivation, our founders set up a system of government which was, at the time, the beginning of egalitarian democracy. The voices of ordinary white people began to be heard as never before in history. The founders, were, themselves, an elite aristocracy imbued with high ideals and aspirations for the good of the country. What they could not have suspected, however, was that when the voices of the common people were considered, many of their high-sounding ideals would be trampled underfoot; and political preferences, partisan politics, and the influence of social and economic pressure groups would overwhelm much of what they were so valiantly trying to achieve.

We are seeing this effect, today; and the high ideals of our founders will probably never, again, be visible in our American society. It has been posited by knowledgeable observers that as soon as the voting majority see that they can vote themselves significant benefits, they will do so; and social freedom and entrepreneurship will disappear from our society. I fear that those days are upon us.

It is my personal opinion that much of the gain in societal management which was so very salutary to our country in the beginning will never, again, be seen in its pure form. I believe that one reason for this is that the effect of Christian religion will not likely be infused into our behavior and policies as it was in the lives and actions of our founders. Such statements as the one uttered by John Adams, our second President, are not likely in our present day political climate. “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

Are American Cities Headed For London?

We have all been appalled at the happenings in London and other British cities lately—riots by young hoodlums with no respect for working people or personal property. They have shown no regard for law and order; and they have not demonstrated any kind of work ethic that would have demonstrated their desire to earn a living. They have been largely young, unemployed people who live off government and social service handouts and bask in a very lenient justice system that lets them off easy when apprehended for miscreant behavior.

British Prime Minister, David Cameron has said, “There is something terribly wrong with our young people.” The London Daily Mail comments, “The depressing truth is that at the bottom of our society is a layer of young people with no skills, education, values, or aspirations….Nobody has ever dared suggest to them that they need feel any allegiance to anything, least of all Britain or their community….Not only do they know nothing of Britain’s past, they care nothing for its future.”

Contributing causes for all this disorder are several in British society: First, is a failing educational system that leaves out basic training in educational subjects. The average Pole who immigrates to England speaks better English than these young rioters after being in the country only six months. Secondly, England is importing foreigners to fill service industries at an overwhelming rate. It is said that one can hardly find any restaurants or hotels with young Brits doing the service work—only foreigners work in such jobs. Social charges on labor and the minimum wage are so high that no employer can extract from the young unemployed Briton anything like the value of what it costs to employ him.

Does any of this sound familiar to American ears? Do any of these social ills pervade our inner cities?

Nancy and I have lately been attempting to teach reading skills and Bible truths to a group of inner city minority group youngsters in Cleveland, OH. Even though the curriculum has been very well thought out and the staff has been skilled at teaching, the results are abominable. These youngsters are so disruptive, ignorant, disrespectful, and parentally deprived, that it has been all but impossible to impart useful information into their minds. They remind us of little time bombs just waiting for some British-type riot to break out so they can participate.

America is needful of a renewal of her biblical work ethic. We need the moral fiber that can only be imparted by sound religious values. We need to return to our ethical, Christian, roots. Only when our people resolve within ourselves to address the social problems of our country in a meaningful way can we ever hope to avoid a quick trip to London!

Same-Sex “Marriage”, Why Not?

Many in our country ask the question, “What is so wrong with same-sex “marriage”? I do not see that it is harming me. If someone wants to marry a person of the same gender, let him do it. It really makes no difference to anyone but himself.”

These arguments do not stand the test of careful scrutiny. Following are the reasons why same sex “marriage” is not good for our people:
1. For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow same-sex “marriage”, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples.
2. Same-sex “marriage” violates what is obviously biologically abnormal.
3. Many religiously conservative researchers have found that children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Boys and girls have needs that are uniquely met by parents of the opposite gender. Under same-sex “marriage” arrangements, more children will grow up fatherless and confused about what constitutes a normal marriage.
4. The role of marriage in society is a major topic taught in public schools. If SSM (same-sex “marriage”) is legalized, schools would be required to teach that SSM is equivalent to opposite-sex marriage, starting as early as Kindergarten. That would violate the beliefs of many parents.
5. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” will force government, industry, and business to financially subsidize an institution to which they have moral objections, thereby intruding on the people’s ability to make moral judgments. Business will have to raise prices in order to insure significant others.
6. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” will lead to the legalization of polygamy and other abnormal forms of “marriage.”

In his 1934 work, Sex and Culture, British anthropologist, J.D. Unwin studied 80 societies, analyzing their cultural beliefs and practices, especially as related to sex and marriage. He concluded that the more sexual opportunity a society had—that is the fewer restraints placed on sexual habits—the less energetic that society would be. In other words, the more sexually promiscuous a society is, the less it will accomplish constructive works in literature, law, inventiveness, etc. When sexual opportunity began to be extended in both pre-marital and extra-marital sexual freedom, Unwin found that such cultures began to decay.

Our society, today, is playing loose with our sexual morals, including allowing same-sex “marriage.” We can expect on the basis of Unwin’s discoveries that our society will, also, suffer cultural loss as a result of these social mistakes.

I can testify that in my personal experience, the above conclusion is true. Nancy and I have been largely occupied fighting sexual infidelity since the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in America in 1973. We have spent untold hours and dollars combatting perversions of sexual practice, including abortion. Those hours and all that money might have been better used if we had not had such a blatant offence to common decency operative in America.

Would that morality would return to the shores of America once more, so that those of us involved in the Pro-Life movement could spend our time and resources on something else!

Is Your Ideology Transcendent?

Or, in other words, does everyone believe your world view? Is your way the way everything should work? Almost all of us human beings have pre-set opinions of how things should be; and we almost always react to changes in public policy, ethical changes, moral issues, etc. with a knee-jerk response conditioned by our pre-set opinions. As we grow older, our responses become even more stereotyped—we do not waste any more time carefully evaluating the things we do and say. In other words, we have made up our minds about what we think.

We all like to think that we rationally evaluate all the choices we see washing over us in the media; but, in truth, we are usually dominated by our preconceived ideological determinants. Once fully formed, our ideologies are durable things; but sometimes we will have second thoughts.

How are our world views (ideologies) formed in the first place? Most of us adopt the views of our parents. Not a few, however, adopt just the opposite views from their parents, because they have not liked what they have seen in their primary families. Of course, there are also other influences, e.g., economic and social interests, racial and ethnic characteristics, religious convictions, genetic predispositions, the influence of peers and respected authority figures (especially college professors), and last—but not least—there may be some rational thinking.

We need to remember that other people go through the same processes in forming worldviews; and we must consider their views. We must, also, learn to doubt our own views to some extent, at least, if we are to live in a social world and come to the best consensus.

One thing the Enlightenment thinkers added to our armamentarium of useful ideas was that in the aftermath of Reformation wars about religion, it was necessary to develop a domesticated Christianity purged of the doctrinal certainties and intensities that had torn Europe apart for decades. Society had to learn that it was not God’s will that we kill each other over disagreements about God’s will.

We should, of course, always try to keep our eye and heart on God’s revealed word in making decisions and always try to apply the Golden Rule in our thoughts and actions. But…we must, also, at the same time recognize that there is a broad scope of civilizing tasks before us. We must do the best we can, using common sense, in the attempt to solve our every-day problems as they arise.

This blog post was excerpted from First Things May 2011, pages 3 & 4.

Government Creates Poverty; Freedom Creates Prosperity

(Reprinted from Reason.com 4/28/11 by John Stossel)

The U.S. government has "helped" no group more than it has "helped" the American Indians. It stuns me when President Obama appears before Indian groups and says things like, "Few have been ignored by Washington for as long as Native Americans."
Ignored? Are you kidding me? They should be so lucky. The government has made most Indian tribes wards of the state. Government manages their land, provides their health care, and pays for housing and child care. Twenty different departments and agencies have special "native American" programs. The result? Indians have the highest poverty rate, nearly 25 percent, and the lowest life expectancy of any group in America. Sixty-six percent are born to single mothers.

Nevertheless, Indian activists want more government "help."

It is intuitive to assume that, when people struggle, government "help" is the answer-- the opposite is true. American groups who are helped the most, do the worst.
Consider the Lumbees of Robeson County, N.C.—a tribe not recognized as sovereign by the government and therefore ineligible for most of the "help" given other tribes. The Lumbees do much better than those recognized tribes.

Lumbees own their homes and succeed in business. They include real estate developer Jim Thomas, who used to own the Sacramento Kings, and Jack Lowery, who helped start the Cracker Barrel Restaurants. Lumbees started the first Indian-owned bank, which now has 12 branches.

The Lumbees' wealth is not from casino money. "We don't have any casinos. We have 12 banks," says Ben Chavis, another successful Lumbee businessman. He also points out that Robeson County looks different from most Indian reservations. "There's mansions. They look like English manors. I can take you to one neighborhood where my people are from and show you nicer homes than the whole Sioux reservation."

Despite this success, professional "victims" activists want Congress to make the Lumbees dependent—like other tribes. U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), has introduced the Lumbee Recognition Act, which would give the Lumbees the same "help" other tribes get—about $80 million a year. Some members of the tribe support the bill. Of course they do. People like to freeload.

Lawyer Elizabeth Homer, who used to be the U.S. Interior Department's director of Indian land trusts, say the Lumbees ought to get federal recognition. "The Lumbees have been neglected and left out of the system, and have been petitioning for 100 years. ... They're entitled, by the way."

People like Homer will never get it. Lumbees do well because they've divorced themselves from government handouts. Washington's neglect was a godsend.

Some Lumbees don’t want the handout.

A European’s Warning To America

Daniel Hannan wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on March 12; it appeared on page A15. Mr. Hannan has been a member of the European Parliament for 11 years; he is a Briton. He wrote to warn the United States to avoid the mistakes that the European Union has been making for the past few decades.

Mr. Hannan notes that the United States has been following the European example for several years, i.e., we have embodied in our society and our government higher taxes, less patriotism, a bigger role for state bureaucracy, and a transfer of sovereignty to global institutions. Many Americans seem to genuinely believe that it would be a good idea to make our country less American and more like the rest of the world—namely, more like Europe. These changes are seen as the way to a more comfortable and peaceable way of life.

In America, we have traditionally designed our government to limit the power of the state by recall mechanisms, ballot initiatives, balanced budget rules, open primaries, localism, states’ rights, term limits, the direct election of public officials from the sheriff to the school board. The EU places supreme power in the hands of 27 unelected Commissioners invulnerable to public opinion.

Mr. Hannan notes that as the U.S. applies a European-style economic strategy based on fiscal stimulus, nationalization of businesses, bailouts, and the regulation of private-sector remuneration, unemployment in the U.S. has leaped to European levels.
Legislation in the U.S. is increasingly implemented through executive orders, bypassing the Congress and Senate. In short, we are losing our freedoms to big government.

Many people don’t even see America as a good place to live—can we blame immigrants who come to our shores for refusing to acculturate into American society?

Let’s get back at it, America! Let’s stop this trend toward big government and the “blame America first” attitude. We have a great country! It is worth sustaining and supporting.

How To Live Longer

A new book called The Longevity Project by Friedman and Martin seeks to identify childhood traits that lead to long life. The best childhood predictor of longevity, it turns out, is a quality best defined as conscientiousness: “the often complex pattern of persistence, prudence, hard work, and close involvement with friends and communities that produces a well-organized person who is somewhat obsessive and not at all carefree.

High intelligence and advanced educational degrees did not correlate with long life. Rather, the ability to navigate life’s challenges was a better predictor of longevity.

Cheerful children turned out to be shorter-lived than their more sober classmates. These children died more often because they had a tendency to throw caution to the wind when it came to life-shortening habits like smoking, drinking, and driving fast cars. The chipper types were also more likely to die from homicide, suicide, or accident.

The early death of a parent had no measurable effect on children’s life spans or mortality risk, but the long-term health effects of broken families were often devastating. The grown children of divorced parents died almost 5 years earlier than children from intact families.

Long-livers had a higher level of physical activity and a habit of giving back to the community, a thriving and long-running career, and a healthy marriage and family life.

Those with a dark disposition, i.e., those who viewed every stumble as a calamity were the most likely to die sooner.

(The above was excerpted from the Wall Street Journal 3-9-11 page A15.)

In looking at this book, I am reminded of the admonition in the book of Ecclesiastes 7:2,3 “It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting. for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart. Sorrow is better than laughter because a sad face is good for the heart.”

Family Situations Worsening in America

A good look at America’s children should tell us that all is not well with the American family: One third of our children are overweight or obese. Nearly a third drop out or cannot finish high school in 4 years. 75% of our youth are ineligible for military service because of poor health, drugs, criminal records, or lack of education.

What is the reason? Poor schools—maybe. Poverty—maybe. But there is a more ubiquitous and insidious reason. 41% of our newborns are born to unmarried mothers. (up from 5% a half century ago). The fact is that young, adult, Americans are just not getting married. For the first time since the census began tallying marriage, the proportion of Americans age 25-34 who had never married exceeded the proportion of those who had been married. Evidence is overwhelming that children of single mothers—particularly teen mothers—suffer disproportionately high poverty rates, impaired development, and low school performance.

A large majority of never-married mothers had close relationships with a partner when their child was born. Many of these women have said to me something like, “I know he loves me; and we are going to get married just as soon as we have enough money—any day now!” WHAT A BUNCH OF NONSENSE!! Those guys are not going to marry their girlfriends when they can get what they want without commitment. The statistics bear out my observation—by the time illegitimate children are 5 years old, most of the fathers are gone, and the children have little contact with them. These unmarried mothers go on to new relationships, and the children are hampered by repeated transitions that do more harm to their development.

America MUST do something about this deplorable situation. We are raising a generation of helpless young adults. If this situation had obtained in 1941, America would not have survived World War II. Our young people would not have been able to serve effectively as soldiers or as civilian defense workers. This country must return to its Christian roots. I believe that Christ and the Bible are the only answer to the problems facing America, today.

This post was largely excerpted from USA Today 1-25-11, page 8A.

Our Mentally Ill Population is Dangerous

During the 1960's, all of the states practically emptied their mental hospitals in order to avoid encroaching on the civil rights of those inmates who were hospitalized wrongly for supposed mental illness and whose civil rights were being violated by their detention. Hoards of disabled and mentally ill people were turned out on the streets of America to fend for themselves in a society where they were practically helpless. As a result, they became the homeless of America. Many were encarcerated in prisons or just left to forage in the streets, living under bridges and in gutters. In my own experience, many were housed in special wards of low income nursing homes. Their maintenance there is inadequate. These nursing homes do not provide locked environments for the violent and dangerous, so...these patients are free to roam the neighborhoods, acting in bizarre ways--sometimes dangerous to others in the society.

Very inadequate provisions were made for their out-patient care and supervision.

One such person described in the first paragraph is Jared Loughner, the alleged killer of six persons in Tucson. Laughner had exhibited strange behavior causing him to be expelled from his community college because the students and teacher were afraid of him. A few days later, the fatal shooting began.

About 16,000 murders occur in the United States yearly. 10% of these are committed by persons with serious mental illness.

It is far past the time when America should pay adequate attention to the needs of our liberated mental illness patients by providing out-patient care for them. One problem with out-patient care, however is that many patients with chronic mental illness refuse to take medications that are capable of normalizing their behavior.

New York has a law that makes provision for involuntary admission to a mental hospital if the patient refuses to take his court-ordered psychotropic medications.
Other states should follow New York's example in this kind of legislation. Our society should have mercy on these mental patients and on others around them by providing adequate care and supervision.

Much of this blog post was excerpted from the Wall Street Journal 1/12/11, page A15.

How To Treat Aliens and Strangers

My wife, Nancy, and I are members of the Board of Directors of Caring Hands Pregnancy Center in southwest Denver. Caring Hands is a Christian compassionate ministry which attempts to help young women with unplanned pregnancies develop other choices for their unborn babies than abortion. In the process of doing that, we offer them free maternity clothes, baby items, counseling services, and community referrals for medical care. One of our main priorities is introducing them to the Savior. Most of our clients are illegal immigrants from Mexico or Central America; they are the poorest of peoples living in the United States. They are under extreme social and economic distress.

Frequently, we ask people to volunteer as counselors or Board members of our organization. Occasionally, Christian people will refuse to work with us, because they think that we are encouraging law breaking and more illegal immigration. They think that instead of helping these unfortunate people with their problem, we should be reporting our clients to the law.

In answer to that objection, we are not a law-enforcement agency; and there is no government regulation that tells us to report these people to the law. Indeed, it is against the law to hire these people; but we are not in the business of hiring anyone. All we are trying to do is to relieve their pain.

Furthermore, the paltry amount of material aid we deliver to our clients is so small that nobody in her right mind would immigrate all the way from Mexico or Central America to get it. Indeed, if all the aid from every compassionate agency in Colorado were poured upon them, it would not add up to anything significant which might stimulate more illegal immigration.

The problem with illegal immigration is a weak and ineffectual Federal Government that is not doing its job of stopping the chaos at the border and that does not establish a useful guest worker program. The job of Caring Hands is to help relieve social and economic pain among our very poor neighbors and to introduce them to Christ.

As Christians, we see very clearly mandates from the word of God for taking care of the alien and the stranger within our gates. For instance, Ex 22:21, 23:19, 23:12; Lev 19:10, 19:33 & 34, 23:22, 24:22; Num 15:16; Deut 10:18, 23:7, 24:14, 17, 19, 20, 21; 26:12 & 13, 27:19; Ps 146:9; Jer 7:6, 22:3; Ezek 22:7; Zec 7:10, the book of Ruth; Matt 25:35, 38, 43, 44.

Strict border regulations in combination with a meaningful foreign aid and guest worker program are not in opposition to Christian principles. But…neglecting the poor and needy among us is in absolute contradiction to Christian principles and practice.

How To Have A Conversation

Conversation is an art form that we all use daily. We should learn how to do it in a constructive and enlightening way, while keeping it enjoyable to all involved.

Many people seem to be talking at others rather than talking with them. Their “conversation” is one-sided, never taking into consideration what the other person might have to offer or might enjoy.

A good conversationalist will listen actively to the other person and ask penetrating and thoughtful questions as the discourse goes on. Conversation is more about listening intelligently than in talking about oneself.

There are times when two people are together; and no real bond is established between them indicating common interests for discussion. At times like those, one should change the subject repeatedly until some common interest is uncovered; and then, a real conversation can begin.

I believe that conversation should very seldom consist of “small talk” about inconsequential subjects, such as the weather or what was on sale at the grocery store. Surely, intelligent people can find subjects to talk about that have some real and important significance! We have all met someone who has the gift of sniffing out real subjects to talk about. With those people, it is virtually impossible to waste time talking about superficial subjects. To me, those people are to be sought out for inspiring and informative conversation.

Some lead-in comments or questions for initiating a good conversation might be such things as, “Tell me what you have been concerned about lately.” Or, “Have you been reading any books recently?” “Where do you go to church?” There are an infinite number of opening questions that might stimulate good conversation.

Always watch your respondent for signs of “listener fatigue:” Not maintaining eye contact or looking at the wrist watch or shifting stance from one foot to another might indicate that the respondent is tired of the subject being discussed.

Practice good conversation and think about it in advance: What do I want to discuss with the other person? Happy listening and talking!

Common Sense at the Airport Body Scanner

I have just passed through the Transportation Security Administration passenger inspection routine at the Denver and Detroit airports; and I have some advice to offer my readers.

The body scanning devices being used in airports are low voltage X-rays that read the scan by backscatter from the radiation contact. They deliver about the same amount of radiation as an ordinary chest X-ray; there is a difference, however. The scanners at the airport do not deliver deeply penetrating ionizing radiation—all of the radiation is concentrated in the skin and the tissues immediately under the skin. Therefore, the radiation exposure is concentrated in that area, resulting in a significant amount of damaging radiation there—more than a chest X-ray. The scan reader sees the body in what appears to be its naked state.

The people running the scans told me that there is no ionizing radiation exposure, but they are mistaken in this matter. The scanners are X-ray machines.

In going through the airports, I have opted to have the “pat down” instead of the body scanner. That procedure was more invasive than the “wand” procedure used to check passengers who fail the metal detector test; but I did not find it to be offensive or objectionably invasive. For this reason, I recommend that my readers refuse the body scanner and have the “pat down.” My wife, also, chose to have the “pat down;” and she did not find the procedure offensive, either.

It was interesting to me that in Detroit, the airport had provided a Muslim woman to do the “pat downs” for other Muslim women. This was obviously because Muslim women are taught to demand higher levels of modesty than other women. I am fairly sure that most women feel modest, too. We seem to think in this country that Muslims deserve special privileges. Never mind the fact that if it were not for Muslims and their suicide bombs, there would not be any bomb danger in airplanes in the first place.

U.S.A. Today Looks Like Rome Yesterday

As President Obama steps down the leadership role of America in world affairs and emphasizes domestic priorities, he begins to look very much like the emperors of the latter part of the Roman Empire.

Rome was the only world superpower in the late 2nd Century, A.D.; but 100 years later Rome was terminally ill, weakened first by internal corruption and unsustainable spending and then destroyed by the emergence of multi-polar contenders for power. Roman currency had been debased; and inflation was out of control. In those 100 years, the Roman bureaucracy grew about 35 fold. Military spending and commitments were scaled back, and Roman citizens were demanding all sorts of government programs to give them the things they desired. Moral life was deteriorating and Roman citizens were being entertained by the most horrible, violent, and degraded forms of sport.

External forces sensed Rome’s weakness, including its shrinking military and its lack of will. Persia’s ruler judged an unusually favorable peace offering from Rome as a reason to attack rather than negotiate. Other enemies reached the same conclusion.

By the mid-5th Century, multiple powers contended for world leadership; and it took 1000 years before the world matched the stability, technological progress, and prosperity enjoyed under Rome’s leadership.

Do you see any similarity of the United States to the situation that pertained in ancient Rome?

(This blog post was excerpted from a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal 11-2-10 by Mike Hall of Gainesville, Fl.)

Legalizing Prostitution??!

A pro-family activist in Canada is applauding a decision by that country's justice minister to appeal the ruling of an Ontario Judge who gutted federal prostitution laws in the province.

The Globe and Mail reports that Justice Susan Himel struck down all three Criminal Code provisions that had been challenged -- communicating for the purposes of prostitution, pimping, and operating a "common bawdy house." Himel argued the current laws endangered more than protected prostitutes.

Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of Canada Family Action, sees things a different way.

"She's in essence legalizing it as long as you do prostitution now within your home or within a brothel," he remarks. "It's atrocious to think that a judge could ever endorse prostitution, which really is an abuse and a violence against all women when it comes down to it."

Rushfeldt says as with the ongoing legal wrangling over California's marriage amendment (Proposition 8), this case demonstrates that activist judges are working both sides of the U.S.-Canada border.

"I would term it 'judicial dictatorship' -- because what these judges are doing by the rulings, whether it be in Canada or the United States, [is] overriding the elected officials; and in doing that they're overriding the will of the people," he explains. "And if that's happening, then in essence democracy is dead."

OneNewsNow.com 10-12-2010