One of the best things about being a Christian is other Christians

I wanted to highlight some of the Christian blogs that I’ve discovered since I started blogging.

The top one in the list is definitely Neil Simpson’s blog. I was just reading over there today and he was really hard on poor Dawn Eden, whose book on chastity I have read. I recommend it, although she doesn’t go as far as I would. Anyway, she’s responded in the comments. She is currently taking classes in philosophy and theology, so it should be a good fight between her and Neil! Dawn’s blog is here.

I also noticed this post over on Laura’s blog, but it’s cross-posted on Hot Air. Laura writes about how the left implicitly doesn’t trust parents to make decisions about how they address the topic of sex when talking to their own children. She writes about the left’s view of parents:

Our teens are political pawns for the left.  They’re helpless victims of our prudery, children that the government needs to provide for at every turn with health insurance and free college tuition (but don’t deserve an adequate secondary education except when it’s time to raise taxes),  socially and technologically savvy enough to make their own entertainment and political choices free from our censorship,  mature and wise enough to choose abortion (but not give birth), and 18 year old babies who need to be protected from sneaky military recruiters and beer.   The rallying cry may be “it’s for the children!” but the only really consistent position I see in the left is that parents do not know best; government does.

Over on Muddling Toward Maturity, he links to a Chuck Colson story on how the self-esteem movement in education and parenting has undermined civility in our children. Here is an excerpt from Chuck Colson:

Whether or not today’s kids are actually “ruder than ever,” the article and others like it reflect the sense that something has gone wrong in the way we raise our children. Specifically, it has to do with “popular parenting movements focusing on self-esteem.”

These movements produce parents who “[respond] with hostility to anyone they perceive as getting in the child’s way.” By “getting in the child’s way,” they mean doing anything that might make the child feel less-than-wonderful about him or herself—in the classroom, among their peers, or on the playing field.

Denyse O’Leary takes on the theistic evolutionists here at Post-Darwinist. I love it when she gets mad at them! She gets right to the heart of the issue: is there objective evidence of intelligent agency active in nature? Intelligent design supporters say YES, atheists and theistic evolutionists (but I repeat myself) say NO.

A video of Denyse talking about her book “The Spiritual Brain” here: (H/T Mindful Hack)

She talks about whether faith is good for people, and how people invent genes to explain their bad behavior.

Kreitsauce writes about the importance of self-denial and self-sacrifice in the Christian worldview, which is neglected these days now that the church has bowed to the society at large and reduced Christianity to feelings of happiness.

Discipleship, in contrast to narcissism, brings true satisfaction with life, because life gains a whole new sense of meaning and purpose. We have real freedom to do what is right, to live a life of intimacy with God. This life of discipleship and self-denial does not mean living without desire or without anything that brings pleasure. God does not call us to the monastery but to live life in the world but not of the world.

Chad at Truthbomb Apologetics has a post up that I will be writing about shortly, because it’s that good. He links to an episode of Casey Luskin’s ID The Future podcast featuring a discussion between a Darwinist and Socrates. He has an excerpt from the dialog here on his blog. The entire dialog is in a PDF on his site.

Tough Questions answered has an analysis showing which “Christian” groups swung from Bush to Obama, as well as this post on post-Christian morality in secular-leftist European nations. TQA cites this article from First Things that argues what I have been arguing recently in my series on atheism and morality.

Over time human rights, now almost universally accepted among Europeans, will themselves come to be seen as so many arbitrary constructions that may, on utilitarian grounds, be revoked—because there is nothing intrinsic about human beings such that they are not to be ill-treated or violated or even killed. Even now, many do not want to be bothered with the infirm elderly or damaged infants, so we devise so-called humane ways to kill them and pretend that somehow they chose (or would have chosen) to die. Elderly patients are being killed in the Netherlands without their consent. A new protocol for euthanizing newborns with disabilities is institutionalized in the Netherlands…

The Australian utilitarian Peter Singer predicts confidently that the superstition that human life is sacred will be definitively put to rest by 2040.

…In an interview for a British magazine during the summer of 2005, Singer said that if he faced the quandary of saving from a raging fire either a mentally disabled child, an orphan child nobody wanted, or normal animals, he would save the animals. If the child had a mother who would be devastated by the child’s death, he would save the child, but unwanted orphans have no such value.

Yes, there is consistent, authentic atheist morality: the happiness of the strong trumps the non-existent human rights of the weak.

My buddy Rich and I scrap over whether chastity is better than marriage over at the Pugnacious Irishman. (He’s getting married shortly, and my friend Robb is getting married tomorrow, so it’s a hot topic for me!)

Over on the Western Experience, Jason has a post up on how Dick Cheney is taking on Obama on his lousy policies. Here’s a clip:

Unqualified teleprompter-reader versus qualified statesman. Nice Deb has a complete round-up here, featuring Michelle Malkin and others. I have to tell you, I am really liking what Liz Cheney has to say these days, as well.

By the way, if you’re into Obama versus the evidence, check out this video on the real value of Obama’s health care reforms, which I found at the Christian blog Verum Serum.

If you have not bookmarked this blog, better do it. They are a new blog, but they are producing high-quality videos and getting linked by major blogs.

Exploding the myth of “Deadbeat Dads”

Dr. Stephen Baskerville e-mailed met to let me know about an important article in the Washington Times about the new show on the anti-male “Lifetime” network. If you want to understand why men don’t want to be husbands and fathers any more, read this entire piece.

Excerpt:

More than 90 percent of fathers with joint custody paid the support due, according to a Census Bureau report (Series P-23, No. 173). So deadbeats are in the minority. Also, most so-called deadbeat dads actually are dead broke. Two-thirds of men who fail to make child-support payments earn poverty-level wages, according to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. Most of the others are unemployed.

Bruce Walker, executive coordinator at the District Attorneys Council in Oklahoma City, who ran the state’s child-support enforcement program for three years and jailed hundreds of fathers for nonpayment, told the Newark Star-Ledger in 2002: “These men are seldom the mythical monsters described by politicians.”

“Many times I prosecuted impoverished men,” he told the Star-Ledger. “I prosecuted one deadbeat dad who had been hospitalized for malnutrition and another who lived in the bed of a pickup truck.”

On his blog, Dr. Baskerville links to some responses to the article, including his own:

Two powerful letters in response were published Wednesday:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/20/the-demonization-of-dads/
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/20/love-and-divorce/

My own letter was published Thursday (full letter below):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/21/the-agony-of-child-support/

All three are worth reading because they are full of statistics that will shock you. Here is the best bit from the third:

Ostensibly created to recover welfare costs, child support enforcement on the federal level has failed and now costs taxpayers more than $3 billion annually. More seriously, it pays mothers to divorce or forgo marriage, thus creating the very problem it is supposed to alleviate.

Mothers are not the only ones who profit from fatherless children. State governments generate revenue from child support at federal taxpayers’ expense. By paying states according to the amount of child support they collect, federal programs give states an interest in more fatherless children. The more broken homes there are, the more revenue for the state.

Don’t forget to read the facts on the lack of male teachers in the schools, which undermines men’s ability to achieve and to be responsible. And when you’re done with that, you can read about the problem of no-fault divorce and the family court system. (A shorter version is linked here)

For those of you who are pro-life or pro-traditional marriage, I want to advise you that this issue is also a very important, although under-reported, issue for social conservatives. Fathers matter, and the state has policies in place that are discouraging men from their traditional role in the family. In the case of a divorce, fathers almost never get custody, and sometimes they do not see their children for years.

Before, I wrote about the fact that 40% of new births are to unwed mothers. Generous benefits provided by the government ensure that fathers are dispensable. Over 20 million children in the United States are raised without a father in the home. And I’m sure you know the social costs to young men and women: violence, anxiety, promiscuity, unwed motherwood, teen pregnancy, abortion, suicides, depression, drug addiction, etc.

And don’t even get me started on the false allegations of rape, harassment, etc., such as the recent Duke University lacrosse scandal. Women who make these false allegations are almost never punished! Over two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women for “irreconcilable differences”. You have to understand that thoughtful men notice these things, and they will make decisions accordingly.

Surprise! Men don’t like being treated poorly by the state. Treat us poorly enough and we’ll find other things to do with our lives than get marriage and raise children. To see what that might look like, take a look at this article on birth rates in countries that are further along the marxist-feminist agenda than the United States.

More in my series on how Democrat policies discourage marriage: Part 1 is here and Part 2 is here and Part 3 is here.

Why don’t thoughtful Christians vote for Democrats?

Over at 4Simpsons, Neil takes a United Church minister to task for upholding the policies of the Democrats. I thought it was a great summary of why Christians should not be voting for the Democrats. We cannot live authentic Christian lives when our money is taken from us and spent by a secular-leftist state that has no sympathy for our Christian goals and ideals.

We need to keep our own money, have a choice of employers, a choice of service providers, and our fundamental freedoms must be secured by unbiased courts that strictly interpret the law. At a minimum, I need to be able to choose how my children are educated. I will not marry or have children if the state is going to confiscate my money and indoctrinate my children.

Anyway, here is Neil’s post, and I’ll cite you an excerpt.

No, Democrats support socialism and job and wealth destroying policies.  Some of them have good intentions but know nothing about history, economics or basic human nature.

Democrats support unrestricted destruction of the “least of these,” the unborn.

Democrats ignore the incredible success of the United States and capitalism, which has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other -ism.

Highly recommended, especially the last paragraph. There is only one group of people that can cause me to become upset, and it is fake Christians who are lazy, ignorant and cowardly.

Women dominate the classroom, so why are they so unhappy?

Check out this story entitled “At the science fair, girls dominate the class” from the Canada’s Globe & Mail newspaper. (H/T My friend Andrew)

Excerpt:

As female students increasingly dominate in science competitions across the country, educators are facing a conundrum that requires more social analysis than hard science: Boys are not just getting beaten by girls — they’re not even showing up.

Five years ago, boys made up 55 per cent of the competitors at the annual Canada-Wide Science Fair, a national competition where youth in grades 7 to 12 compete against other regional representatives. After a steady decline, this year boys are in the minority at 44 per cent.

Girls are also claiming the lion’s share of prize money available each year: Eight of the last nine overall winners have been female.

…Megan Hawse, 13, … plans to apply for a provincial internship program that promotes women in science and engineering — but there isn’t a similar program for her male classmates.

I guess none of these educrats have read any books like Christina Hoff Sommers’ “The War Against Boys”.

What caused the decline in male achievement?

Feminism did.

Let’s take a look at just one of the reasons why. There are almost no male teachers in the schools, due to discrimination against men.

Consider Australia: (from the Sydney Morning Herald)

According to… the NSW Teachers Federation, as of June 30, 2005, there were 14,446 female primary school teachers in NSW compared with just 2820 who were male.

In Victoria for the same period, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there were 15,640 primary school female teaching staff as opposed to 3952 who were male.

“It’s very striking to realise that 80 per cent of non-readers and problem learners are boys. We can speculate as to whether this is a direct consequence of the inadvertent femininity of schools.”

“Boys need role models who can show them that learning is a masculine activity, that men are interested in them, and are not always remote, critical or uncaring,” says Biddulph.

“This may be their only chance to experience men who are nonviolent, friendly, good at dealing with misbehaviour and interested in their development. Men can show boys that the world of reading, writing, music, art and learning is as much a man’s as a woman’s world.”

What about the United Kingdom: (from the BBC)

The YouGov survey of 603 children aged eight to 11 shows 51% of boys believe they are better behaved with a male teacher – and 42% say they work harder.

At present, a large majority of teachers in England’s primary schools are women with only 16% being men.

Currently one in 12 pupils will have gone through primary school without ever having been taught by a man.

…There were indications that having male teachers could help boys’ overall experience of school – with 44% agreeing that male teachers “help them to enjoy school more” and 37% of boys saying it made them feel more self-confident.

More than a quarter of boys agreed that male teachers “understand them better” and could be “relied upon for good advice”.

And so we graduate class after class of feminized, irresponsible, underachieving men. They can’t earn a living or make a commitment, but they are well trained in drinking, partying and pre-marital sex.

How has this affected women?

Women are more unhappy than ever

Ann Althouse notes that women are more unhappy than ever, according to a new survey.

And no wonder! Women are generally more satisfied by fulfilling relationships with a loving husband and children. Spending all of this government money on things like day care, birth control, abortions, scholarships, etc. incentivizes women to get away from the things that women really want. Naturally, women should have the same opportunities as men to accomplish anything they want to. But they should not be coerced by an ideology.

I wonder what women will do to find husbands and children now? I am not sure that sperm donors, divorce settlements and big government welfare programs are adequate to take the place of loving husbands and fathers, the way that Democrats seems to think. The more the state taxes, regulates and controls the behavior of men, the less men will want to engage in any enterprise, including marriage and parenting.

Marriage, family and children are way more important than making money. Everyone who reads my blog knows that I think that Michele Bachmann is an exemplary woman. But remember – she had 5 children and 23 foster children and she home-schooled them for 5 years in between her time as a tax lawyer, business owner, state senator and a  Congresswoman. If you’re looking for a first female President, look no further.

Further study

Don’t forget my 3 part series on why Democrat policies, which single women overwhelmingly support, discourage men from marrying, here (socialism), here (same-sex marriage & cohabitation) and here (no-fault divorce).

Friday night funny: Nancy Pelosi, Michele Bachmann and capitalism

Here’s Canadian-raised comedian Steven Crowder’s latest video. This one made me laugh out loud, and you will too! (H/T IMAO.us)

And here’s the lovely Michele Bachmann staying calm against Barney Frank. Beauty and the Beast! (H/T The Maritime Sentry)

Remember, Democrats caused the recession and Republicans tried to stop it! And Barney Frank was one of the main players in causing this recession, as you can see from the linked New York Times article. Now Michele has to come in and try to clean up their mess.

Fun cartoons

Here is an old-fashioned video on capitalism. I feel so subversive even showing them to you. This is the kind of thing real Americans used to learn about before the public schools were taken over by marxists, feminists and draft-dodging leftists! (H/T IMAO.us)

Part 1:

Part 2:

More old-fashioned capitalist propaganda here! This one is about energy production, enterprise and competition. It has little green men with pointy ears!

Happy Friday!

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

%d bloggers like this: