Category Archives: News

New study: homeschooled adults are more religious and less anxious

I’ve been preparing an outline for a podcast about “Where Are All the Good Men?” and I only get to have like 7 questions. But one of the issues that gets a question is my obsession with homeschooling. I didn’t always like homeschooling, but the more I studied it, the more important it became. In my opinion, good men will insist on homeschooling out of a candidate wife, because it’s critical.

Here’s a story about a new study that I found in The Federalist:

A recent report from the Cardus Education Survey analyzed educational, economic, mental health, civic, family, and faith status for American adults who were homeschooled and found a range of outcomes within a diverse population.

[…]The most notable differences between homeschoolers and the survey respondents who were never homeschooled are seen in the mental health outcomes. The report states, “Compared to the other respondent groups, long-term homeschoolers exhibited the highest levels of optimism, gratitude, and life satisfaction. Long-term homeschoolers were also the least likely to ‘feel helpless dealing with life’s problems’ and to report symptoms associated with depression and anxiety.”

In the area of spirituality and faith, the report found: “Homeschooled adults were much more likely to report that they believed in God and life after death and regularly engaged in religious practices. The prevalence of religious belief and practice increased with the number of years spent in the homeschool sector.”

This is pretty good, but even better if you pair it with another recent study on homeschooling that was written up in the Wall Street Journal.

With that said, here is a report from the Wall Street Journal about a new study that you might be able to use to be bold with people who oppose homeschooling. (Full text of the article here)

Parents want their kids to be well-educated and professionally successful, but they also want them to be healthy, happy and virtuous. By this broader measure of success, home schooling has advantages.

Among the students we examined, home-schoolers were 33% more likely to volunteer, 31% more forgiving and 51% more likely to attend religious services in young adulthood than those who attended public school. (“Levels of forgiveness” were measured on a self-reported four-point scale, which other research has shown predicts some subsequent health and well-being outcomes.)

The difference in religious participation has public-health implications, since those who attend services regularly have substantially lower risks of alcohol and drug abuse, depression and suicide. They also have a lower risk of premature death for any reason than those who never attend.

So, again, for a good man who is data-driven in his search for a wife, homeschooling emerges as the best option for educating the children. It’s just not a good idea to give your children to unionized, government-run schools for 6 hours a day. Those schools are not neutral. And as we’re seeing in the news, the people who work at those schools don’t view the parents who pay their salaries as customers. They’re more likely to see you as “domestic terrorists” just because you don’t agree with them on politics.

Found: $2 Billion in taxpayer money earmarked for Stacey Abrams-linked Group

I don’t have TV and I have not been listening to news podcasts for a week, but I have the impression that the secular left is upset at the idea that our $37 trillion debt, and $2 trillion deficits will be cut. Somehow, they don’t really think that this is a problem. They want the spending (which is being paid for by future generations) to continue. Even if the spending is just wasteful.

Here’s a bombshell story from the Washington Free Beacon:

DOGE discovered $2 billion in taxpayer funds set aside for a fledgling nonprofit linked to perennial Georgia Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams.

The Environmental Protection Agency under the Biden administration awarded Power Forward Communities the grant in April 2024 as part of the agency’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program. Power Forward Communities received the green energy grant despite the fact that it was founded months earlier in late 2023 and never managed anywhere near the grant’s dollar figure—it reported just $100 in total revenue during its first three months in operation, according to its latest tax filings.

Two billion dollars for greenhouse gas reduction program? And they only reported $100 in revenue? That seems like a pretty poorly-run group. Let’s see who is running it.

More:

Power Forward Communities was established in October 2023 as a coalition of groups led by Rewiring America, a left-wing group that advocates for electrification policies and a transition away from fossil fuel dependence. Abrams, who serves as Rewiring America’s senior counsel, said at the time that she was “thrilled” to be part of the Power Forward Communities coalition. “This is how we expand access to clean energy—by prioritizing housing, equity and resilience,” she wrote in an X post.

Oh yes, Stacey Abrams! That well known nuclear physicist with the strong record of running companies that developed loads of clean nuclear energy, so that prices were lowered for consumers. Oh wait, no, that’s not the one. This Stacey Abrams is the romance novel author, who has earned no STEM degrees, and no STEM work experience. A single mother of 3 children. She has no achievements in the field of science at all.

More:

“For an organization that has no experience in this, that was literally just established, and had $100 in the bank to receive a $2 billion grant—it doesn’t just fly in the face of common sense, it’s out and out fraud,” Daniel Turner, the executive director of energy advocacy group Power the Future, alleged in an interview with the Free Beacon.

This is not the only instance of waste from the Biden administration. Here’s another from yesterday from Daily Caller:

Nikola, an electric vehicle start-up that received federal funding during the Biden administration, said it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Wednesday and will pursue a sale of most or all of its assets.

The company, once a Wall Street darling valued at $30 billion, announced the bankruptcy after several quarters of rapid cash burn and waning investor interest. Nikola also suffered from chronic leadership changes after its founder and original CEO, Trevor Milton, was convicted of fraud in 2022. The long-haul electric truck manufacturer produced only 600 vehicles since its founding in 2014, according to CNBC News, despite receiving subsidies from the Biden administration’s Department of Energy (DOE).

So, should you listen to the corporate news media’s cries about DOGE cutting government waste and rooting out corruption? Of course not. This is the kind of thing they are finding, and stopping.

Do moral dilemmas undermine objective moral absolutes?

One reason why some people reject the existence of objective morality is because moral absolutes can conflict.

Canadian philosopher Michael Horner to explains the problem.

He writes:

You may have been confronted with the story of the Nazi soldier coming to the door of the family who are hiding some Jewish people in their home and asking them point blankly, “Are there any Jews here?” The person telling the story then asks you, “What would you say?” or more precisely, “What should you say?”

[…]I think for many people the term moral absolutes connotes ideas like inflexibility and rigidity, and that there can never be exemptions. I have also found that many people believe that holding to moral absolutes means that circumstances are not relevant in a moral evaluation and that moral absolutism cannot handle moral dilemmas. But in fact it is possible to believe in moral absolutes, or as I prefer to call them objective moral values, without adhering to these connotations I have mentioned.

For many people to believe in moral absolutes is to believe in rules that no other rules can ever trump. It follows from this that moral absolutes are all equal and there can never be any exemptions. But what if moral absolutes exist in a hierarchy?

We know from experience that very often more than one moral rule applies to a situation. This often leads to moral dilemmas. So in the ‘hiding the Jews example’ the moral rule of telling the truth seems to apply to the situation, but it would seem that the moral rule to protect innocent human life from torture and murder applies also.

If absolutes are all equal there is no way out of the dilemma. You can’t choose one absolute over another because in doing so you would be violating at least one absolute which, in their view, is supposed to be inviolable.

So, in this case, it seems as if the moral absolutist is stuck in a dilemma. If you lie to save the innocent life, then that would be wrong. But if you tell the truth and hand the innocent person over to murderers, then that would be wrong. Does this really disprove objective moral absolutes?

This problem annoys me, because I know this is the kind of objection to objective morality that annoying philosophy lecturers like to push onto freshmen in order to convince them that morality is nonsense.  But does the moral dilemma objection really work?

More Horner:

[…][I]f moral absolutes exist in a hierarchy and the circumstances or the situation were relevant in determining which absolute takes precedent, then there may be a solution to the moral dilemma. That is exactly what I think is the case in the example. I for one have no difficulty knowing that the morally right thing to do in that situation is to protect the life of innocent people from torture and murder rather than tell the truth to a person who has torture and murder in their plans. My moral intuitions are very clear about this.

If someone objects and says, “No, you must always tell the truth. After all it is an absolute, and absolutes by definition can never be violated,” I would point out that they are just using a different hierarchy, putting truth telling above protecting the life of innocent people from torture and murder. There is no way to avoid making a judgment like that since more than one absolute does apply to the situation. I would just ask them to think it through again, and once they see that they have to make a judgment based on some sort of hierarchy in that situation, then I think most people’s moral intuitions will affirm that protecting the lives of innocent people from torture and murder, in that situation, trumps truth telling. There is no way to avoid choosing one over the other.

But isn’t this moral relativism? After all, we are deciding what to do based on the situation! It’s relativism, isn’t it?

No, it isn’t, because there is always one right thing to do in every situation. In every situation, you always follow the weightiest moral rule. The right thing to do does not depend on your subjective state of mind. It is an objective moral duty, and it is the same for everyone, across all times and in all places. That’s what objective morality means -what is right and wrong is not determined by personal preferences or cultural conventions, which vary by time and place.

And of course, God is the ground of this hierarchy of objective moral absolutes. They existed through him before human beings even appeared, as part of his design for us, his creatures. How we ought to behave is grounded ontologically in God’s design for us.