Posted on 06/14/2008 8:52:50 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
For millions of children across the U.S., this Sunday will not be a cause for celebration. Because of dramatic increases in divorce and nonmarital childbearing, about 28% of our nation's children -- more than 20 million kids -- now live in a household without their father, up from 10 million kids (14%) in 1970, according to a recent Census Bureau report. Moreover, because most of these boys and girls see their dads infrequently (once a month or less), Father's Day will offer cold comfort to many of these children.
Our nation's epidemic of fatherlessness is just the most salient indicator of what University of Chicago theologian Don Browning has called the "male problematic" -- the tendency of men to live apart from their children and to invest less emotionally and practically in their families than women do.
This situation has not gone unnoticed in America's houses of worship. Religious leaders, particularly evangelical Protestant ones, have expressed their alarm. "As I review the latest research on family disintegration, I am repeatedly confronted with the same disturbing issue," recently wrote Dr. James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family. "Boys are in trouble today primarily because their parents, and especially their dads, are distracted, overworked, harassed, exhausted, disinterested, chemically dependent, divorced, unable to cope or simply not there."
But how successful have churches and synagogues been in getting the men in their congregations to put family first? Mr. Browning argues that, historically, one of the signal achievements of Christianity and Judaism is that they underlined the sacred character of the marriage vow -- thereby encouraging men to be good husbands and fathers.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
If you mean that divorced fathers aren’t welcome at church, then what do you suggest?
I don’t mean anything of the sort. And what “church” has that rule? Certainly not mine.
We could probably also add that many gov't programs (e.g., aid to dependent children) encourage dads to stay away until he wants to "reappear" and is in the "right" mood.
You said: “Fathers don’t go where their not welcome.” In post # 2.
Just curious as to what you mean.
And curious as to why you had the post deleted?
When a woman can summarily file for divorce, then file an untrue domestic violence complaint to have said man forcibly removed from his home, and then be forced into the servitude of child support payments for which there is no accountability, is it any wonder why we have a serious problem.
Is there any reason for a man so ejected from his home and family, not to just throw up his hands and walk away?
You’ve just briefly touched on some of the moral hazards of fatherhood and defined by the State.
This is why it is critical that men follow the rules. And one of the rules is religion. If a man is not religous, then he runs a greater risk of facing a femi-nazi family court.
Plain and simple.
all the statistics stated above are the direct result of forty some odd years of liberal policies.
It’s interesting that there is no racial breakdown of the statistics. It seems everything else, from the average number of french fries per serving to the cost of haircuts is always broken down along racial lines.
Less to cast blame then to seek solutions, what needs to be done?
1) To start with, motherhood is too important for government to force women to work as well, through high taxes. “Productivity” does far less for our nation than well raised children. Therefore married couples with children need to have their taxes slashed.
2) Typically, the cost of housing in an area rises to about 50% of net wages. This is intolerably high, and does not reflect the market value of housing, any more than if ordinary cars were priced starting at $150,000, by tacit agreement of the car manufacturers. This problem needs to be addressed from some direction.
3) Religions must enforce marriage. In essence, they must vet potential couples, train them for married life, arbitrate disagreements, and strictly control divorce. If they decide to divorce in a civil action, that divorce may not be recognized by their religion if it is frivolous, and so they may not remarry in their church.
Religions should also petition government to affirm their right to regulate marriage within their faith, and even to seek agreements with other religions to recognize the sanctimony of their marriages as well.
4) The design of housing needs to be adapted so that small communities of “multi-family friendly” homes are built, so that they contain young couples that want or have small children, and exclude singles and older people. The homes are designed so that these families can easily help support each other, and their children can have extended socialization with each other.
5) In turn, this means the stabilization of America’s work force, so that families can stay in the same location for many years. This involves corporations avoiding personnel relocations, especially of young married couples.
” The design of housing needs to be adapted so that small communities of “multi-family friendly” homes are built...”
Why do I get the vision of ‘projects’ or communes? What’s wrong with the American Dream of buying your own home?
Besides, we already have housing geared toward young married people.... its called Base Housing. — no thanks.
Exactly right.
And if couples divorce, then they should lose the tax exemptions that healthy American families deserve.
After all, divorce costs you and me some 112 BILLION DOLLARS annually.
When? When will our country wake up and repeal the no-fault divorce laws, abolish the anti-family family courts, and restore the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman?
I want my country back!
Not. Absolutely not, and not even "religion" -- if it's real -- pretends that life works that way.
I should have elaborated. Over a decade ago, a suburban developer came up with the idea of an octagonal housing area. Eight houses faced out from a central common backyard, and each one had a smaller, private yard.
The idea was that it was specialized housing for young couples either with young children or who wanted children. It provided a large, safe and secure place for kids to play and socialize, and created a more social situation for parents as well.
Importantly, it appealed to younger parents, as the homes were offered with limited 20-year leases, so that when the kids grew up, the octagon would not be full of older couples whose children had moved away.
The design encouraged larger families as well, instead of just one or two children. The development, I believe, had about 10 octagons, and its density was higher than for typical ranch houses on the same area.
However, it was not the best place for either single or older adults as it was child oriented.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.