Tag Archives: Children

News

Secular government uses your tax money to limit your religious liberty

2 Comments
Map of Canada
Map of Canada

Often, Christians, Jews and other religious people are swayed to vote for left-leaning parties in elections. The leftists promise all kinds of goodies that they will provide, freeing us from the responsibility to provide for ourselves. And they promise that it won’t cost us a thing, because they will take the money from our rich neighbors, or from some other group of people who, they tell us, have no right to their own money. Well, what happens when religious people trust the secular government and vote them into power in order to get these goodies?

This is what happens in Quebec. (H/T Don Surber)

Excerpt:

MONTREAL — The 3- and 4-year-olds at the Childcare Center of Hebrew Foundation were always excited on Fridays. They’d get to re-create the rituals their parents typically perform for Friday night dinner, an integral part of the Jewish Sabbath, or Shabbat.

On a rotating basis, each child would be designated, if female, to light candles and say a blessing or, as a boy, bless the challah bread. The “wine” would be grape juice.

But on Friday, there was no Shabbat simulation. And there probably never will be again, if the Quebec government can help it.

“My 4-year-old daughter is devastated she can’t do her Shabbat next year,” said Sandy Jesion, who sends his child to the daycare in Dollard-des-Ormeaux, a Montreal suburb where he lives.

Nor are there any more prayers before the mid-morning snack. No stories about Noah’s Ark. No recounting of the parting of the seas.

Don Surber writes:

But the center could prevent this if it refused government money.

From the Toronto Star: “As of last Wednesday, subsidized daycare and early-childhood learning centres in Quebec have had to abide by a new directive prohibiting religious activities, which the government expects to foster the integration of all children.”

Don’t get me wrong. Canadians should fight this. But the Childcare Center of Hebrew Foundation is not helpless. It could tell Quebec where it can shove that money.

Notice though, that a much better solution that not taking the subsidies is to NOT VOTE FOR THE TAXES in the first place. Vote to shrink government, and then you get to keep your own money and spend it as you see fit. Your employer gets to keep the money, so that he will be able to raise your salary, or to not LAY YOU OFF in a recession. It is never a good idea for religious people to give a secular government their money, or even their neighbor’s money. The secular government can never spend the money as efficiently as private citizens can. It’s your money – you keep it and spend it on helping others the way YOU think is best. And if you want to have a religious education, then that’s your decision. Don’t let the government use your money and then make that decision FOR YOU. Don’t let someone else take your money, or your neighbor’s money, or your employer’s money, and then use it to PUSH THEIR VIEW ONTO YOUR CHILDREN. You keep your money and raise your own children. You call the shots with the money you earn.

News

FRC releases new study on marriage and economic well-being

Leave a comment

Mary found this little blurb on the Christian Post.

Excerpt:

Marriage plays a big role in the well-being of the U.S. economy, such that sound and stable marriages keep the economy healthy while divorce helps the economy regress, a new report suggests.

The findings released by the Family Research Council’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute show how intact married-couple families outperform other family types, including remarried families, divorced families, single-parent families, and cohabiting families, in all of the following economic segments: employment, income, net value, net worth, poverty, receipt of welfare and child economic well-being.

Basically the stats show that the more intact the family remains, the less the difficulties and the inefficiencies the family encounters.

Married-couple families generate the most income with “the median household income twice that of divorced households and four times that of separated households,” reads the report.

Divorced families on the other hand experience a sharp decrease in income after the separation. Divorced women are affected the most as they are 2.83 times more prone to live in poverty than women who remain married.

MARRI Director Pat Fagan, Ph.D, said couples that remain stably married can provide a sound environment where children can be securely fostered while divorce triggers society’s reliance on government welfare programs – programs that currently cost tax payers around $112 billion per year.

Then I went looking for the research paper and found this press release.

Excerpt:

The economic well-being of the United States is strongly related to marriage, which is a choice about how we channel our sexuality. The implications of sexual choices are apparent when comparing family structures across basic economic measures such as employment, income, net worth, poverty, receipt of welfare, and child economic well-being. In all of these the stable, intact married family outperforms other sexual partnering structures; hence the economy rises with the former and encounters more difficulties and inefficiencies as it diverges from it.

Family Structures and Economic Outcomes:

  • Employment and Income. Married-couple families generate the most income, on average. Young married men are more likely to be in the labor force, employed, and working a full-time job than their nonmarried counterparts. Cohabiting men have less stable employment histories than single and married men. Married families generally earn higher incomes than stepfamilies, cohabiting families, divorced families, separated families, and single-parent families. According to one study, married couples had a median household income twice that of divorced households and four times the household income of separated households.
  • Net Worth. Intact, married families have the greatest net worth. A family’s net worth is the value of all its assets minus any liabilities it holds. Married households’ net worth is attributable to more than simply having two adults in the household: a longer-term economic outlook, thrift, and greater head-of-household earning ability (the marriage premium) all contribute to greater household net worth.
  • Poverty and Welfare. Poverty rates are significantly higher among cohabiting families and single-parent families than among married families. Over one third of single mothers live in poverty. Nearly 60 percent of non-teenage single mothers rely on food stamps or cash welfare payments.
  • Child Economic Mobility and Well-Being. Children in married, two-parent families enjoy more economic well-being than children in any other family structure. Children in cohabiting families enjoy less economic well-being than children in married families, but more than children in single-parent families. The children of married parents also enjoy relatively strong upward mobility. By contrast, divorce is correlated with downward mobility. A non-intact family background increases by over 50 percent a boy’s odds of ending up in the lowest socioeconomic level.

Having a high net worth is necessary if you want to have an impact. With money, you can buy people apologetics books, sponsor debates, get more degrees, and contribute to Michele Bachmann, and send your children to the best universities so they can have an influence. Therefore, we need to be extra careful who we marry, extra diligent about preparing for our roles in marriage, and extra persistent in staying married. We need the money for important things.

The FRC is my second favorite think tank, right behind the Heritage Foundation.

Commentary

Parental authority and the need for independent children

6 Comments

Mary sent me this interview of Randy Alcorn from Eternal Perspectives Ministries.

Here’s the problem:

What is the greatest challenge parents of young people face?

I would say balance. Parents have to balance their responsibility to govern their children’s lives with their teenagers’ need to develop independence and freedom. Parents have to maintain that tension.

And here’s a snapshot of the solution:

So, what does that mean in terms of parenting? The ideal is prevention. Parents need to develop their relationship with their child and build the level of intimacy that gives them the right to come down hard in certain areas. 

Too often the relationship is typified by Mt. Olympus. Parents come down like lightning bolts to their kids, then return to the top of their mountain. The relationship is confrontational, when what they need is a consistent, loving relationship in which 90 percent of what is done is affirming. Criticism should be the exception instead of the rule. 

Jesus came down to us in the incarnation and we need to come down from our adult world and enter our children’s lives. Only then can we help pull them up into maturity.

You raised two daughters. What patterns did you establish with them?

We talked a lot. When the girls were young, we sat down and read Bible stories and talked about principles, trying to plug those into their current situation—whether it be kindergarten or sixth grade or high school, the principle is the same. We tried to spend the time with them that allowed us to see their lives as they happened. That was a big thing to us.

You sound like you’ve thought this through.

If we don’t think strategically about parenting, then we’ve made a statement: our children aren’t important, or parenting comes so naturally that it happens without our attention. 

If we’re going to influence our children, we need to strategize—regrouping and reevaluating along the way.

Anyone else in agreement with Randy? The idea that what really matters is QUANTITY of time spent talking about the lives of the children and injecting the Christian worldview into the lives of the children every day – instead of waiting until things blow up – sounds plausible. But that requires parents with lots of time for parenting.

So, if you’re a man looking for a woman who can take this kind of challenge on, you’d better find someone with a lot of time for parenting and a track record of effective nurturing. The ideal woman would be someone who dumps everything else whenever she sees an opportunity to influence a person’s worldview, especially in spiritual areas, and take action. If she is able to build up her friends to be world-changers, and has achieved a lot herself, (an investment portfolio, a career prior to becoming a mother, graduate school degree, apologetics and theology capabilities, running a business, reading research papers, etc.), then that would be the best-case scenario – because then she’ll be teaching them from experience of been a Christian herself and succeeded.