A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.
The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.
Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”
“Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”
The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course.
[Labor Department] Secretary Hilda Solis is convinced that “children employed in agriculture are some of the most vulnerable workers in America,” so she and her team wrote 200 pages of rules dictating what kids can and cannot do on American farms.
The list is so over the top that it bans anyone under 18 from working in grain elevators, feed lots, silos, stockyards, and livestock auctions. Operating power tools like screwdrivers, milk machines, or tractors? Also off-limits. Any work that “inflicts pain on an animal” is also outlawed, even though the department doesn’t stipulate what that means. Would branding or tagging cattle be taboo? What about veterinary work?
Apparently, these activities are all at Solis’s discretion. Her department’s press release is clear, “[The government] charges the secretary of labor with prohibiting employment of youth in occupations that she finds and declares to be particularly hazardous for them.” Notice there is no mention of families or the parents’ responsibility to keep children safe. Under this policy, even kids’ chore charts will be dictated by a Washington bureaucrat. Solis insists that her agency is “working to prevent unnecessary child injuries or deaths.”
[…]The bottom line is that these decisions belong to the family–not the Feds. The government doesn’t need to swoop in and rescue children from their own relatives. In this or any legislation, family rights are the last things Washington should put out to pasture.
How does it help us if children don’t get experience in agriculture and develop a work ethic working with their parents on the family farm?
Disclaimer: I have reservations about Tim Keller. I consider him to be too liberal for my tastes, especially on scientific (intelligent design) and political/economic issues. However, I think he did a good job explaining marriage in the lecture below.
Timothy Keller visits Google’s New York, NY office to discuss his book “The Meaning of Marriage.” This event took place on November 14, 2011, as part of the Authors@Google series.
Timothy J. Keller is an American author, speaker, preacher, and the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. He is the author of several books, including “The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.”
“The Meaning of Marriage” touches on topics that all readers can relate to, starting with the role of marriage in our culture, its history and the pessimism that is often associated with it. The Kellers also discuss the feelings of and acts of love, romantic relationships, gender roles, singleness, and the role of sex in a marriage.
I saw a lot of things in his lecture that echo my own views. One point where we agree is on not just looking for traits and virtues in the other person, but in seeing how they handle conflict and solve problems with you. You have to give the other person things to do and see if they make progress and work cooperatively with you. Wes, who linked me the lecture, introduced the link by saying that this is the way that Christians should explain marriage to non-Christians. I agree, and I’ve added the book to my cart.
In generations past, there was far less talk about “compatibility” and finding the ideal soul-mate. Today we are looking for someone who accepts us as we are and fulfills our desires, and this creates an unrealistic set of expectations that frustrates both the searchers and the searched for.
[…]The Bible explains why the quest for compatibility seems to be so impossible. As a pastor I have spoken to thousands of couples, some working on marriage-seeking, some working on marriage-sustaining and some working on marriage-saving. I’ve heard them say over and over, “Love shouldn’t be this hard, it should come naturally.” In response I always say something like: “Why believe that? Would someone who wants to play professional baseball say, ‘It shouldn’t be so hard to hit a fastball’? Would someone who wants to write the greatest American novel of her generation say, ‘It shouldn’t be hard to create believable characters and compelling narrative’?” The understandable retort is: “But this is not baseball or literature. This is love. Love should just come naturally if two people are compatible, if they are truly soul-mates. “
The Christian answer to this is that no two people are compatible. Duke University Ethics professor Stanley Hauerwas has famously made this point:
Destructive to marriage is the self-fulfillment ethic that assumes marriage and the family are primarily institutions of personal fulfillment, necessary for us to become “whole” and happy. The assumption is that there is someone just right for us to marry and that if we look closely enough we will find the right person. This moral assumption overlooks a crucial aspect to marriage. It fails to appreciate the fact that we always marry the wrong person.We never know whom we marry; we just think we do. Or even if we first marry the right person, just give it a while and he or she will change. For marriage, being [the enormous thing it is] means we are not the same person after we have entered it. The primary challenge of marriage is learning how to love and care for the stranger to whom you find yourself married.
Hauerwas gives us the first reason that no two people are compatible for marriage, namely, that marriage profoundly changes us. But there is another reason. Any two people who enter into marriage are spiritually broken by sin, which among other things means to be self-centered—living lifeincurvatus in se. As author Denis de Rougemont said, “Why should neurotic, selfish, immature people suddenly become angels when they fall in love … ?” That is why a good marriage is more painfully hard to achieve than athletic or artistic prowess. Raw, natural talent does not enable you to play baseball as a pro or write great literature without enduring discipline and enormous work. Why would it be easy to live lovingly and well with another human being in light of what is profoundly wrong within our human nature? Indeed, many people who have mastered athletics and art have failed miserably at marriage. So the biblical doctrine of sin explains why marriage—more than anything else that is good and important in this fallen world—is so painful and hard.
When you are courting, don’t worry about appearances and feelings and passion so much, because that is all subject to change over time, and those things won’t help you with the real challenges you’ll face in a marriage. Worry about whether they are the kind of person who can make commitments and love other people self-sacrificially – even if they are unlovable. In the long run, their ability to read and understand issues, to care for others and serve them, to keep promises, to be respectful and supportive, to argue respectfully and reasonably, and to solve problems constructively, will all be far more important than appearances and feelings and passion.
And let me be clear again: give them things to do that challenge them during the courtship and see how they handle being given responsibilities – giving a person hard things to do is a much better way to test a person than recreational nights out with recreational drinking, recreational dancing and recreational sex. Marriage means commitment and hard work, not recreation. And that’s what you should test for – the ability to work hard at the relationship and to keep promises and commitments and to communicate reasonably and to work through difficulties fairly.
The number of single women and lesbian couples receiving fertility treatment has soared since the Government took the controversial decision to remove the legal requirement for any child conceived to have a father or father figure.
In 2007, before the change in the law, only 350 single women had IVF. But by 2010, the last year for available figures, that had leapt 448 per cent to 1,571. The number of lesbian couples given IVF more than doubled in the same period, from 178 to 417. But the number of heterosexual couples treated rose by only 18 per cent.
[…]The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in 2008 removed the requirement for clinics to take into account a child’s need for a father or male role model before agreeing to treatment. Instead, gay couples or individuals have to prove only that they can provide ‘supportive parenting’.
The legislation also allowed birth certificates to record two mothers or two fathers for the first time.
One beneficiary is single mother Elizabeth Pearce, who had treatment to have her son Leo, now two. She paid £900 for sperm from an anonymous donor.
Unable to afford IVF after being made redundant from her job as a personal assistant, she cited the European Convention on Human Rights to compel her local NHS trust in Ealing, West London, to pay for her treatment.
Ms Pearce, 40, who now lives in Kent, said: ‘In an ideal world, Leo would have had a dad but that’s not the way things worked out. Single women have as much right to a child as couples.’
Natalie Woods and Betty Knowles, from Brighton, were the first lesbian couple to have a child that listed them both as parents on the birth certificate.
Ms Woods, 40, who had IVF and gave birth to daughter Lily-May in 2010, said: ‘The legal changes have given a clear message that it is OK to parent without a father. What’s important is that there are either one or two big hearts filled with love for your children.’
Keep in mind that IVF is completely taxpayer-funded in the UK. Families where the man works and the wife stays home with the children are forced to subsidize IVF treatments for single women through the UK’s very progressive income tax code.
Just in case anyone needs a refresher, here are some statistics showing the harm that fatherlessness causes little boys and girls. It’s also important to realize that IVF typically results in some number embryos being thrown away because they are not wanted. So not only are there harmful effects on children caused by the fatherlessness, but there may also be the killing of innocent unborn children when discarding unwanted embryos. And if that were not enough, keep in mind that marriage prevents abuse of women and children as well as child poverty, according to the evidence we have.
