Posted on 08/20/2009 1:27:43 PM PDT by lady lawyer
(WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM) Patrick Fagan, family scholar at the Family Research Council, told the World Congress of Families last week in Amsterdam that there are two competing cultures of sexual morality and that both have a profound effect on culture and public policy. Fagan called one culture “monogamous” and the other “polymorphous” and he warned that one is “snatching” children from the other.
Fagan told the audience that “the culture of the traditional family is now in intense competition with a very different culture. The defining difference between the two is the sexual ideal embraced [by each].” He described an “elegance in the simplicity of the ideals behind the two cultures: monogamy and polymorphous serial polygamy, or ‘polyamory' for short. “
Fagan said the “constitutional state was the product of monogamous culture [while] the expanding social welfare state is increasingly the product of polyamorous culture. The constitutional state is built upon a sense of the sacred and gives religion a public place even as it protects the freedom of religion [or no religion] for all… The social welfare state today is more comfortable with atheism or at least the removal of religion from the public discourse and the total privatization of religion and the sacred.”
On the life issues, Fagan said that in monogamous culture “all human life is sacred and protected, be it the pre-born, the handicapped or the elderly” while in polyamorous culture about one-third of the pre-born are killed by their mothers and the handicapped and the elderly are unwelcome and increasingly vulnerable to early elimination.”
Fagan warned that while monogamous culture is fertile and expanding and polyamorous culture is in below replacement fertility, that polyamorous culture is still expanding through their control of three areas of public policy: “education of children, sex education, and adolescent health.” Fagan said that through such control polyamorous culture “snatches children away from their parents and away from monogamous culture in ways analogous to the Ottoman Turks of the 14th century who raided boys from Christian nations to train them aS their own elite warriors, the Janissaries.”
Fagan said “this snatching is almost complete when these three program areas result in adolescents accepting and engaging in sexual intercourse” and that “every time the polyamorous programs and media succeed in drawing teenagers into sexual activity they have captured another Janissary.”
Fagan described efforts monogamous culture has used to fight back, especially the rise and success of abstinence education, but also explained the way polyamorous culture rose up and crushed it. He also pointed out that the campaigns against home schooling are an effort by the dominant polyamorous culture to stop parents from protecting their children.
In the end, Fagan called upon “monogamy men” to fight back. He said the only answer is for them to fight for control “over what is his and his family’s just due, what his taxes fund, and what he can use in raising his children, control over the three big programs of childhood education, sex education and adolescent health programs.”
I thought I saw this above the lintel of a public school.....
Sounds much too soft on the Islamist barbarians.
“Sounds much too soft on the Islamist barbarians.”
Where did that come from?
It doesn’t help when even those who espouse monogamy advocate postponing adulthood, marriage and childrearing until the 20s and even the 30s.
Thanks for the post.
Thanks for the post. Pinging for later.
Here is a typical brownshirt tactic employed by the sexual liberationists against the truths they feared would be brought forward at the WCF meetings:
Anti-Christian vandals target World Congress of Families meeting
He is right. They are and it is because we have allowed far too much permissiveness in our culture with disregard for disease, the children produce, the confusion and cost of society less clear on what is right and wrong. The cost is huge. Single motherhood, radical individualist sexual activism which refuses to differentiate clearly destructive and disease ridden behaviors from stable normal families. It shows a decrease in intelligence of the population and a devolution of humanity.
The fringe radicalism is like a mold growing towards the center. It can’t survive unless we enable it to. We can stop it in an instant but instead many of us submit to the will of the growing population of modern hedonists. We play a hip game of pretend, pretending so many of those children of single mothers don’t grow up to go straight to prison, we pretend stds of all types aren’t growing more prevalent, we pretend that personal responsibility doesn’t apply to adult sexual behavior, we pretend molestation doesn’t play a role in homosexual and other sexually deviant behavior, we pretend little children will be just as well off in the hands of deviants and then we pretend we don’t see them when they suffer abuse.
I fear it will take the rise of barbarism of another sort to turn back the zombie hedonists that are rotting this nation. I hope not but either we stop it through peaceful assertion of the will of a free moral people or the growing Islamic population will because the social liberalism is killing and warping the minds of our children so much so that even if they could fight many would not.
Actually, I noticed that Pat is now with the Family Research Council. When I worked with him, he was at Heritage. I’m curious about the reason for the change. He is great.
Pardon; I should have said “former Fellow” at Heritage. As the article states, Fagan is with Family Research Council, also a DC think tank (for the benefit of other readers on this thread).
I do not know; I have only been following his writings.
The left hates the World Congress of Families, because it unites groups representing a majority throughout the world who believe in traditional family values, even if they otherwise disagree on religion or politics. The left counts on us fighting amongst ourselves. They know that, if we quit taking potshots at each other over our religious differences, we form a huge majority that can take them down.
Fagan is, of course, right about the fight being between those who have standards regarding sexual behavior, and those who do not. But it’s not just limited to sex. The fight is between those who have standards regarding financial responsibility and paying your own bills and those who do not. It is between those who have standards regarding living responsible lives so as not to become a burden on society, and those who believe they should do as they please and force others to pick up the costs, whether we are talking about sexual behavior, or any other kind of behavior.
Oh, yeah -- the last election was a great example! /sarc
I was most disappointed in James Dobson's meddling in the last election. Dobson's waffling over Fred Thompson not being orthodox enough and then finally realizing he had better get behind McCain -- or else -- may have lost us the election.
This fellow makes some very original points....at least ones I haven’t heard before. He is also roughly saying that the paganistic culture is stealing children from the religious& family minded
“He is also roughly saying that the paganistic culture is stealing children from the religious& family minded.”
That’s exactly what he’s saying. And he’s right.
McCain lost the election all by himself because he was a bad candidate. Actually, he was terrible. The only thing he had going for him was Sarah.
Correctomundo. There is a difference between:
a) those who plan ahead (they prepare to marry and become parents with a spouse, and sacrifice now to invest in the future through and on behalf of their children), and
b) those who mate on impulse like animals, then complain or become violent when they are abandoned, and (intentionally, carelessly or by default) let their spawn grow up like weeds.
He is. It is an apt parallel with the Janissary phenomenon, or the gypsies or traveling circuses of old. Unfortunately, the powers of hedonism have grown very strong and organized through the Internet and international hedonic institutions and behind-the-scenes players eager to divide and conquer in the name of socialism.
>>We play a hip game of pretend<<
Don’t kid yourself. It’s not just the libs that ascribe to some of these behaviors, when it comes to their own families, the rules are different.
Start a thread on unwed girls giving their babies up for adoption. How keeping those babies gives a clear signal that it’s okay. How the consequence of pregnancy for a fourteen year old should be having to give up a baby.
I got slammed here for TWO days when I said that. One poster even told me how wonderful her 14 year old was with her baby, nursing and rocking her.
(I said, buy her a puppy) In fact, a poster that I considered a friend, told me I was heinous and that he would never speak to me again.
We as conservatives tell girls to abstain and not to abort, but some fully agree with the stand the liberal society takes once the babies are born. So the girls have NO consequences.
You are exactly right. It is not just about sex. It is a pervasive problem. Permissiveness, narcissism, feelings of entitlement are all are the vogue but the cost is real and growing and those of us who are paying for it are getting less and less tolerant of the burden.
We'll have to disagree that Dobson did no damage. You have it backwards. McCain might not have been the candidate if not for Dobson's meddling in the nomination phase, when enthusiasm for Fred was strong among social conservatives, but Fred's unorthodoxy didn't meet Dobson's idealistic standards.
Dobson failed to see a realistic big picture of the available candidates, and which one was most likely to be found acceptable by enough swing voters to beat Obama and still deliver a conservative agenda. Once the deeply ambivalent McCain was nominated, essentially by the leftist media, of course he lost.
I was a big fan of Fred Thompson, but he clearly did not have enough fire, and unfortunately his posture made him look bad on the tube. He also ran a campaign that put us all to sleep. He was still my favorite of the GOP candidates, and not even Reagan coming back as an angel declaring him as the next GOP candidate could have revived him (sorry, a little rhetorical flourish there).
It's unfortunate what happened, but Dobson had little to do with the GOP crash and burn. I can think of dozens of problems before that one comes up.
I totally agree. In a related matter, I got flamed on an adoption thread by bleeding hearts who really think their sentimentality about a child of rape discovering and then invading her birthmother's life is her "right." They called the birthmother who gave a child of rape a life instead of aborting her was a "bitch" for not wanting the grown child of her rapist to demand her affections and family relations, and slimed those of us in favor of the rule of law as well, citing their emotions as proofs of their position.
One of the male posters on the thread indicated that this was the first time he had seen, from a woman's point of view, why she might choose abortion, rather than have a bureaucrat "out" her traumatic past years later -- in spite of the state's agreed-upon policy when they accepted the child for adoption. Without a strong moral ethos or the rule of law, it's pure sexual anarchy.
Distraught woman sues, alleging N.J. helped child of rape find her
Every little bit hurt. Since moral conservatives are the largest single bloc of Republican voters, I wish Dobson had kept his two cents out of it. We needed thoughtful analysis of the actual situation, not the ideal nor emotional passion such as the tone he usually takes. I admire Dobson as a theorist of child psychology; but politics is a whole different shark tank, and his actions interpreted as evangelical king-making came at a very bad time.
World Congress of Families: Fringe, But Still Dangerous
By SIECUS Opposition Researcher, August 19, 2009
This piece was drafted collaboratively by CHOICE for Youth and Sexuality, Ipas, SIECUS and World Population Foundation as a response to the World Congress of Families.
On the surface, the fifth World Congress of Families (WCF) certainly looks like a bust. In the weeks leading up to the WCF, conference organizers heralded the impending arrival of 4,000 "pro-family" advocates to the liberal city of Amsterdam. The paltry 400 or so participants who actually made their way must certainly have been a huge disappointment to the organizers. While the poor showing makes it easy to dismiss the WCF as fringe, fractured, and of no consequence, it is premature to declare the decline of the movement and the end of its influence.
The World Congress of Families, which began taking shape in the mid-1990s, has never been a movement with a particularly large or active base. Their ability to influence policy at a national and international level comes not from the grassroots, but rather from their well-connected and well-established leadership. The WCF co-sponsors are a who's who of the conservative right-wing in the United States, many of whom were warmly embraced by the Bush Administration. In the last decade these individuals have nurtured analogous conservative leadership in Eastern Europe and the developing world to promote a similar, reactionary agenda.
One should be concerned about the WCF, not just because of what they say, but because of what they do: influence domestic and international policy. The WCF's mission is to protect "the natural family," which they define as a nuclear family with a father and mother and children. This outdated worldview discriminates against women, is homophobic, and upholds an offensive and outdated patriarchical system. Yet, the WCF has succeeded in institutionalizing this model, most recently in Romania where, last month, the government enacted the country's new civil code, defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. The U.S.-based Alliance Defense Fund (ADL), a WCF partner and co-sponsor, "provided legal counsel to several key Romanian parliamentarians who eventually introduced and ensured the passage of the key articles on marriage and family."
And these attacks are not just focused on more conservative countries. Even in a liberal bastion such as the Netherlands, not only do they want to limit legal marriage to only for a man and a woman, they want stricter restrictions on divorce and they want to take away the rights of gay couples to adopt.
Such extreme views are anathema to a rights-based society that respects and values the individual. And it is this very rights-based framework that the WCF and its organizers seek to dismember in favor of a theocratic and ideological order. Europe and America have a long tradition of fighting against the type of values the WCF promotes. The antiquarian family model promoted by the WCF - a self-reliant agrarian family with no use for a centralized government - might energize WCF members with its quaintness and wholesomeness, but it does not resonate with modern 21st century families.
Supporting the family - broadly defined - is not a controversial issue but rather one we all support. What is dangerous is to legislate around the concept of the family. Families are not finite paradigms. Families change, they break up, sometimes they can be dangerous environments for children. The repeated refrain at the WCF is that the family must have primacy over the individual and that the state's function is to serve the family. But the Netherlands has always been and must continue to be about the rights of the individual, of the woman, of the child, of the man. We must continue to recognize that, while the WCF may represent the fringe, it is still imperative to challenge their efforts to undermine the human rights of all.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
You are right but it is the left that continues to push the envelope further and further. I was very upset when my youngest sister(20) got pregnant out of wedlock. She didn’t give her son up for adoption and if she had tried my Wife and I would’ve adopted him first. The key thing for me is that the children can be taken care preferably with a loving Mom and Dad. My sister died a year after my nephew was born so now my parents are raising my nephew but then again they were already. Our family didn’t have any divorce and having babies out of wedlock was just unacceptable and certainly not something to brag about.
My Grandmother on my Mom’s side had one son out of Wedlock and he was raised by her Mom. Things were different then but the difference helped keep people pointed in the right direction especially poorer less well off people. Now the bad behavior of the juvenile single mother feeds like a virus transmitted to her children and society smiles as if to say “oh isn’t that nice”. The sad thing is that those children who live in government provided houses with single mothers who often have strange men in and out of the house with little or no education as well as sub-par peers provide a huge disadvantage to their children and guarantee those children have a fairly straight path to prison or worse.
Thanks Albion. Far too many do not realize the scope of what we face.
I am so sorry to hear of your sister’s death. Thank God your family has surrounded her little boy. God bless all of you.
Education of children!
So?...Where is the best place to instill values? Answer: The home! Do everything you can to make a homeschooling education possible.
If you can't homeschool, please do everything you can to find a private school that upholds the values you are teaching in the home.
Please do not send your children into the government K-12 schools! They are godless in their worldview. By being godless they teach children how to live without God! If your child does manage to maintain his faith he learns to compartmentalize it.
Finally, as conservatives we must set up educational foundations to award grants to individual teachers. These teachers would open tuition-free conservative one room schools, mini-schools, or homeschool cooperatives. The foundations would certify the teacher, test the students, approve the curriculum, and run sports leagues.
We must close down the government K-12 schools and work to see that every child in the nation has access to a tuition-free, private, conservative education.
Without Dobson we would have ceded this debate a long time ago. He's a genuine American hero who helped rally us many a time.
McCain was once a hero, but he wasn't ready for what was thrown at him. Wrong guy, wrong place. Whatever forces were marshalled in 08 were almost impossible to beat, and surely Thompson or any other of our weak candidates could not have beat those forces. If anything, McCain has inadertently unleashed the deer slayer from Alaska on the Dems, plus the base is now waking up (in spite of him). What fine retribution.
Our best hope is to move on, redouble our efforts and win back this country from the forces that have taken it. 2010 may be our last hope.
Ann Coulter said that single mothers are glorified in society.
She got slammed but she was right.
Nice wrap-up. Like you say, we’re on the same team.
Up until the very last possible minute, we were hoping against hope that John Bolton would throw his hat in the ring. There was huge grassroots support for him, Dobson being one part of that.
Fred Thompson did not have the will. Friends talked him into running, but he really didn’t campaign much. And John the Don was his good buddy.
I love John Bolton. But he makes the left even crazier than Bush and Rove.
Badly worded. The left would go crazier over Bolton than they do over Bush and Rove.
Yes indeedy. But the Conservative base would have poured in money, (and votes,) the Christian Right would have mobilized, the Military would have supported him wholeheartedly, and we would have won.
Dobson failed to see a realistic big picture of the available candidates, and which one was most likely to be found acceptable by enough swing voters to beat Obama and still deliver a conservative agenda. Once the deeply ambivalent McCain was nominated, essentially by the leftist media, of course he lost.
*********************
Agreed. What happened in 2008 is a perfect example of how to lose an election.
And we would have had 4 to 8 more years of non-stop Pelosi-Read faux moral outrage and sedition. Perhaps it's better this way: the people are finally getting to realize why it's important to vote, even for a flawed candidate, if not voting will end up like this.
Plus, he needs a style make-over. (LOL!)
I may be spiritually incorrect in having wanted the far right to compromise on a candidate whom they initially regarded as a compromise with their beliefs; but in that Dobson eventually backed McCain, whose religious bona fides no one can know any better than they can know Thompson's heart, it looks like he learned the art of compromise too late in this election. I looked at McCain's actions compared to Thompson's, and there was a clear difference. Thompson should have received the support of the Party.
I saw Dr. D's actions as naive, not fully aware of the unintended consequences. That said, he is a fine man whose positive contributions are almost inestimable -- our culture might have been a lot farther down the tube by now if not for his long career.
It may be that this election is what we have needed to finally wake people up. I pray that this is so. American politics has become a rendering unto Caesar. Sadly for the decent people of America, we lived in an undeclared theocracy for the first 200 years, and it lulled the electorate to take it for granted. Now the barbarians at the gate have generalized any smallest belief that a God exists into the equivalent of a compulsory sectarianism that the church-state doctrine was intended to neutralize, but only narrowly.
The Islamist barbarians are the most sexually conservative people on the planet. Ergo, any advocate of sexual conservatism must begin by completely breaking that association.
I know very little about Dobson, but I do think that naive or not, he adversely affected the process. That was very unfortunate for this country.
We shall see what happens in 2010 and 2012.
Why? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
They are not hardly sexually conservative. If anything, they are perverse. They are extremely strict on their women, but that is hardly related to sex in any way. It is a control mechanism. They OWN their women. They rape girls, women, and boys at will whether they be islamic or anyone else.
Anywhere they migrate, cases of rape go up exponentially. Take a look at the stats.
The Koran is replete with Muhammad’s sexual perversions and rule changes during “holy days” or “fast days” altering them at a whim if he decided he wanted sex.
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.