The Sexual Revolution Backfires!

 

Mary Eberstadt has written in the Weekly Standard of 25 June 2018 about the sexual revolution, which took place in America and even around the world, fifty years ago. It has had dilatory effects on our culture. The manifestation of “free sex” pushed forward by the reform movement has caused five obvious consequences of this trendy way of thinking about sex roles:

First, the modern use of birth control pills has resulted, not in freedom and family health, but in increased frequency of divorce, cohabitation, and abortion never before seen in history.

Second, the limitation on family growth is leaving thousands of elderly people to live lives of loneliness and abandonment, because they have very few progenies to care for and pay attention to them as they age. The New York Times has reported 4000 deaths weekly of lonely old people without family support. In Japan, people are even being found dead in their apartments only after neighbors suspect something wrong after the odor of a decaying body alerts them.

Third, pornography is substituting for healthy sexual activity between married adults. This is leading to divorce and psychological damage.

Forth, the cheapening of sex among the population is causing an increase of sexually transmitted diseases and the perverted practice of egg donation for monetary profit to those who cannot conceive normally because of abnormal family arrangements or the results of sexually transmitted diseases.

Fifth, the MeToo movement has cropped up due to the widespread belief that women are available for sexual exploitation and dishonesty about their willingness for extramarital sex.

I would add to these five problems outlined by Ms. Eberstadt the fact that illicit sex is ruining the character of both men and women who are disappointed, disillusioned, and disheartened by unfulfilled and uncommitted sexual activity. Both the family and the personal character of men and women is suffering.

Furthermore, the sexual revolution is destroying and emasculating male character in men who take what they want sexually and deny the responsibility of supporting a wife and children. Instead of getting out of the house, working for a living, and supporting moral values, they stay at home on the couch watching TV sports, drinking, and even using illicit drugs to squelch their feelings of worthlessness.

The sexual revolution has not fulfilled the promises that women’s liberation said it would.  

Appeasement Agreement with Kim Jong-un

Since the victorious return of President Trump to America after his visit with Kim Jong-un, I am reminded of the return of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to London in 1938, waving the appeasement agreement he had made with Adolf Hitler in Munich. The crowds were cheering; the newspapers were mostly in agreement with the crowds and the statement of Chamberlain. “My good friends this is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home and sleep quietly in your beds.”

King George VI issued a statement to his people, “After the magnificent efforts of the Prime Minister in the cause of peace it is my fervent hope that a new era of friendship and prosperity may be dawning with the peoples of the world.” His mother, the dowager Queen Mary remarked that “the Prime Minister was delighted with the results of his mission, as are we all….He brought home peace….”

The House of Commons discussed the Munich agreement on 3 October. Winston Churchill spoke harshly against the agreement; no Conservative voted against the pact. But 20-30 of them abstained from voting, including Churchill and Anthony Eden.

Hmmm…I wonder. I hope we are not repeating the error of 1938. It has been said that those who disregard the lesson of the past are prone to repeat it. I hope not.

Is The #MeToo Movement Beneficial?

A recent article in Imprimis by Heather MacDonald deserves comment: She has pointed out that the #MeToo movement has some decided drawbacks that are damaging to our culture.

Ms. MacDonald points out that “#MeToo (a movement in which several women are claiming to have been sexually abused by male employers) is going to unleash a new torrent of gender and race quotas throughout the economy and culture, on the theory that all disparities in employment and institutional representation are due to harassment and bias.” She says that the movement is already causing one social group in particular—white males—to be discriminated against in favor of supposed “diversity.” This push for “diversity” is manifested in the practice of choosing women for employment in preference to more highly qualified men, particularly white men.

She points out that the feminist movement is denying the differences between men and women in their proclivities to choose different types of activities and occupations. Men, she points out, tend to choose fields that are characterized by departments which use science, technology, engineering, and math. Women are naturally attracted to fields which “make the world a better place, according to the common understanding of that phrase.” In general, women are better at activities of nurturing and interpersonal relationships than are men. It seems certain to me, that women make better homes and do better in the tasks of child raising than do men.

Women, these days, are being encouraged to engage in activities and professions that have previously been dominated by men. Often, women do very well in these professions; but at other times, they do not do as well as highly qualified men who are pushed out of competition because of pigment or sexual differences.

We have a good example of this kind of discriminatory activity in one of our granddaughters. She is a young woman who has been strongly encouraged to become an engineer because her parents believe she should learn how to make money in the market place. Although she is doing well in engineering school, she does not have any significant desire to be an engineer. She spends all her time out of school working in refugee camps around the world. I, personally, think she should be studying sociological subjects and how to help people manage difficult problems in their lives.

Another example from our family is one of our sons, who, several years ago, applied to the University of Oklahoma for a position in the Engineering department. He was denied the position. The department told him that, “We would like to hire you, but you are the wrong color and the wrong sex.” By turning him down, the University of Oklahoma missed hiring a young engineer who later became a world-class research engineer in hydraulics at the University of Missouri.  

In our own family, we have found that a mother in the home has been the most beneficial effect we could imagine. I am pleased to report that our six children have not succumbed to worldly temptations that are ravaging our culture, today. They don’t spend their time in video gaming, drugging, premarital sex, etc. Our success in family structure and functioning is due to the fact that Nancy was what is disparagingly called a “stay-at-home mom.” Any success we have had in life has been due to the emphasis on family that has been instilled by that “stay-at-home Mom!”  

How Do You Understand the Scriptures?

There are two ways to understand what you are reading in the Bible—two ways of thinking. You can look at the Bible from an inductive or a deductive viewpoint. Often, both types of thinking are helpful.

First of all, deductive Bible study involves what is called “a priori” thinking. “A priori” thinking means “to the front.” In simplest terms, it means coming to the Scripture with your preconceived ideas in order to understand the essence of the passage in question. Bible students who use “a priori“ thinking come to the reading with an idea about it already or a story that defines the idea; then, the preconceived idea adds to the reading to deduce the meaning. “A priori” thinking involves adding a story to get the meaning of the reading.

If we are reading Psalm 139, and we are using this deductive thinking technique we will ask ourselves, “How can I apply this Psalm to my daily life and future, i.e., what can I deduce from it judging directly from the words of the Psalm and my own ideas about the subject. In order to understand this Psalm, I must add a story to the words expressing my own impressions.  This deductive reading can imply that the reader  already thinks he knows what is the truth of the reading; and he does not need to consult with the original writer through a posteriori thinking.

Inductive Bible study is a technique of study called “a posteriori” thinking. “A posteriori” thinking involves looking at a reading to figure out what the author actually meant when he wrote it. “A posteriori” thinking involves looking at the story that preceded the reading to get the meaning.

Let’s look at an example of what I am saying:

Again, thinking of Psalm 139, we may ask ourselves, “What does God think about this Psalm? What can we learn about Him from reading this Psalm?” This can be thought of as “thinking to the back,” This is “a posteriori” thinking.  In this kind of thinking mode, we are applying our reason to the task of literary interpretation, i.e., understanding what the Psalm means from the viewpoint of the author. We are looking at what we can understand about God from reading this Psalm.

As I have said above, however, both kinds of reasoning can be profitably applied to our understanding of the Bible. For instance, if we read inductively (“a posteriori”) we can learn some of the qualities of God, who wrote the Psalm. Then, we can ask ourselves the question, “What can I say about my understanding of how I should apply this knowledge to the life I live in the present?” This last question converts the study of Psalm 139 to a deductive process of thinking from an inductive technique. Deductive (“a priori”) thinking asks us to use our reason to understand how to fully apply the knowledge of God gleaned from our inductive (“a posteriori”) study to our lives in the present and the future in a reasonable way.

We all should use both kinds of thinking in our daily Bible reading. We need to look at the Scriptures to see what kind of God wrote it (“a posteriori” or inductive) and how we should use the information we have gained from that understanding to tell us how we should act and think (“a priori” or deductive). The utility of these understandings is that if we read the Bible, we should understand what parts of our reading tell us about God and His ways and what parts tell us about ourselves and our ways.

In reading the Bible, we need to ask ourselves, “Am I looking at God’s ideas, or am I looking at my ideas?” We must all remember that we each bring our own ideas with us when ever we open a Bible. We need to carefully separate our own ideas from God’s ideas in our understandings.  

There is one other feature of the term, “a priori” which might be somewhat confusing. The term “a priori” can also mean “self-evident.” In that case, the truth of an “a priori” statement is obvious and right out in front—the meaning of the statement is so obvious it requires no further explanation. Its meaning clearly shouts out of the passage. An example of this is the statement, “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.” There is no question about the meaning.

On the other hand, “a posteriori” statements are never self-evident. They require study and examination to understand their truth. For instance, the statement, “The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. Instead, He is patient with you not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) This statement may seem to be true to some Bible students on an “a priori” basis; but I would posit that readers of the Scriptures should examine this statement to see what it says about God. Thus, understanding this statement in this way is an “a posteriori” task.

In studying the Bible, it is always best to use the inductive (“a posteriori”) method first. Seek to understand the mind of God by this kind of thinking. Then, and only then, draw your deductive conclusions using a priori ways of thinking. Don’t jump to conclusions based on your preconceived notions. Even the simplest biblical principles need inductive data to fully understand them, e.g., “God is love.” Always ask yourself this question: “Am I using inductive or deductive reasoning as I read the Scriptures? Am I reading to understand God, or am I deducing things to confirm my own preconceived ideas?”

The wrap-up of this blog post in the simplest terms is this: Look to God and his written word first; then…apply your own thinking in order to apply these concepts to your life.

UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

The Weekly Standard ran an article in their 12 February 2018 issue entitled, The Case For Free Money. This article chronicles an idea sweeping both the Conservative and the Progressive sides of political and economic thinkers. The idea is that many people think that the nation would be better off if we would pay every citizen over the age of 21 a stipulated income without any requirement that they go to work. All entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing assistance, and Social Security Disability insurance would be eliminated. People would be required to pay for their own upkeep.

The idea springs from the fact that the government spends more than $1 trillion each year helping the poor, yet one in eight Americans lives in poverty. Present government welfare programs are not working! Many people are thinking that just giving free money to everyone would lift the poor out of poverty by giving them a start-up fund on which to begin establishing businesses and going to work.

The idea sounds like a beefed-up version of a huge new entitlement program. However, thinkers from both sides of the Conservative/Progressive divide are considering it. Stockton, California has even instituted such a program; that city has decided to supplement 500 of its citizens with such a give-away program! (This is apparently a pilot/experimental program in Stockton.)

This program is even being promoted by such prominent Conservatives as Charles Murray, the author of In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State and Coming Apart: The State of White America. Murray proposes giving everyone over the age of 21 years an annual income of $13,000 and compel them to spend $3,000 of it to buy catastrophic health insurance. The recipient would be allowed (but not compelled) to work and earn more money on top of the $13,000. The payment would be tax free up to $30,000/year and taxed above that amount. Government payments for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other welfare payments would cease, and everyone could spend the money any way they pleased. This money would be given to everyone regardless of his or her wealth or poverty situation.

The government presently spends $2.2 trillion in annual entitlement benefits; and his program would spend $2.6 trillion in 2014 dollars. Entitlements are projected to grow faster than the projections of this plan, so in time it would save money.

Backers of such a plan believe that this money would stimulate the poor to go to work and to establish businesses. More people would get married, as it becomes possible to live a middle-class life-style by sharing distributions and combining them with a little bit of income. Women in bad relationships would have financial independence from ne’er-do-well boyfriends. The middle class would be able to save for retirement. Workers would not be tied to soul-crushing jobs.

This whole idea is the craziest idea I have heard lately. For one thing, nobody is incentivized to work by giving them money. I believe that nobody who has lived in one of America’s rust belt cities would ever endorse such a wild idea. Nancy and I worked and went to church in the heart of Detroit’s warehouse district for 10 years. At that time, the state of Michigan had a program called General Assistance, in which thousands of able-bodied young men received cash money from the state government because they had no source of income. It seemed to us that all those young men rested on their laurels and did no work whatsoever. They had a bonanza of money income without doing a lick of work. Finally, a Republican governor came into the state house; and the General Assistance money disappeared. As a result, many of those men went back to work.

Social programs often do not accomplish what they were intended to accomplish; often, they accomplish something else; the unexpected side-effects are the predominant thing accomplished. The most blatant example of this is what happened to the money of Medicaid, a program that was initially designed to take care of medical expenses for the poor. However, Medicaid money now goes predominantly to nursing home financing for any American with less than $3000 in the bank; there is no means test for relatives of people in nursing homes.

The idea of requiring all recipients of basic income money to buy catastrophic health care coverage is ludicrous. In the first place, poor people will never have enough money saved up in the bank to pay the up-front money before insurance money becomes available to them. They will still need Medicaid money for health care. For this reason, Medicaid funding as we know it, today will still be required. And…the whole idea of not covering people under 21 years of age will require government money in the form of continuing Medicaid insurance.

It is interesting to me that Senator Bernie Sanders does not endorse such a plan. And…if a Socialist such as he does not endorse the plan, there must be something egregiously wrong with it.  

Do States Have the Right to Over-rule Federal Law (Or, Are Sanctuary Cities and States Legal?)

The United States are currently debating with varying effectiveness the question stated in the above title. Self-defined “humanitarians” and those seeking a larger Democrat voter base think states have this right. They believe that the states and various cities around the country can cancel out Federal laws concerning immigration and the handling of illegal immigrants if the local population votes to do so. These people believe they can mandate avoidance of Federal immigration laws within their own, specific, geographic boundaries. 

Others, believe that Federal laws outlawing violation of immigration laws should be enforced uniformly and across-the-board in the whole United States.

The question of nullification of Federal laws by individual action in the various states has a long and circuitous history. The first application of the idea of nullification occurred in 1798 when Virginia and Kentucky voted to rescind the Alien and Sedition laws.

In the 1820s, laws to apply tariffs to various commodities caused severe distress in the southern states; and attempts to nullify these laws were enacted in several states.

A huge crisis ensued between South Carolina and the Federal Government over the tariff of 1828 and 1832. In 1832, a South Carolina state convention passed an ordinance declaring the tariffs unconstitutional. In 1833, the U.S. congress passed a compromise tariff, which was satisfactory and the S.C. the crisis was over.

Since that crisis, the doctrine of states’ rights has been asserted again by opponents of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, proponents of California’s Specific Contract Act of 1863 (which nullified the Legal Tender Act of 1862).

Opponents of Federal acts prohibiting the sale and possession of marijuana in the 1^st decade of the 21^st Century have caused periodic and sometimes painful civil unrest and damaging public demonstrations.

Opponents of laws and regulations pertaining to firearms in the late 1900s up to 2013 have produced serious opposition to federal law and proposals for state nullification.

Of course, the grand example of states’ rights nullification acts was the Civil War of 1861.

All of these nullification movements among the various states of our nation were rebuffed by judicial or legislative action and/or the popular beliefs of our people. In the case of the Civil War, only brute force continued the authority of the Federal Government over states’ rights when laws obnoxious to various states are passed.

As stated in my opening paragraph, the United States is now engulfed in an argument about the disposition of illegal aliens among us. We are also at odds with one another about what to do with issues concerning the legalization of marijuana and questions about the legality and advisability of homosexuality in our population. If history is to be observed, it seems to me that the nation will finally come around to the conclusions that Federal law continues to trump state laws; and probably will win these arguments. Individual states cannot be allowed to make their own laws in violation of Federal law. If the states prevail, we will live in a chaotic situation with even more confusion than we are now experiencing.

Do You Know God's Address?

When you send a letter, you need to know the address. Likewise, when you pray, you need to know the address to which you are sending the prayer. God has several addresses; and I have listed several that I use while praying. I’m sure you can think of many other addresses. Addressing God properly will load your prayers with thoughts that will lead to effective praying.

v Great creator/sustainer

v God of the cloud and fire

v Healer of the blind and paralyzed

v God, from whom grace cataracts down from heaven and flows forever

v God of hope

v Unchanging God

v Father of true peace

v We praise you, Ancient of Days

v God of comfort

v Thou righteous and holy sovereign

v O God, of unsearchable greatness

v O God, whose will conquers all

v O Lord God, who inhabits eternity

v Living and ever-present God

v Proclaimer of mercy, love, and justice

v Jesus, our Savior, our teacher, our friend

v Savior of the burdened, heavy-laden from the fall

v Watching and caring God

v Eternal God, our answer