An article by Christopher Hitchens’ brother Peter in the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Scrubone)
Excerpt:
Here beginneth the first lesson: In St Paul’s first epistle to Timothy, Chapter 5, we read: ‘If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.’
And in his second epistle to the Thessalonians, St Paul rubs it in, in that way he has: ‘This we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.’
This seems pretty clear to me, and a dozen generations before my own knew these words by heart and lived according to them. They gave to charity and supported the helpless and needy with all their might.
But they scorned those who sought to live off others when they had no need to.
[…]I don’t mind bishops intervening in our national life. That’s what they are for. I like having them in the House of Lords to remind us of the foundations on which our country stands. But they are not there to act as reinforcements for the Liberal Democrats. They are there to remind us that we are at heart a Christian nation and people.
They should stand up for lifelong marriage, denounce the lax treatment of wrongdoers and the neglect of their victims, condemn public drunkenness, defend unborn babies against those who wish to kill them, stand in the way of stupid and unjust wars, and of selfish cruelty of all kinds. But they really have to get out of their heads the idea that the Welfare State must be unconditionally defended.
For it is the hard-working poor who pay for it, and who see their near neighbours living lives of shameless idleness on their money. And they also watch criminals profiting by their crimes, and getting away with it.
If the parsons, pastors, priests and bishops of this country took the side of the poor against these parasites, instead of acting as their spokesmen, they might find their churches filling up again.
But as long as they talk like the TUC, they will stay at the fringe of our national life.
He’s actually replying to the lame apostate Archbishop Rowan Williams. If you want a real Archbishop, try His Grace Archbishop Cranmer.
Here’s a fine article on the long-term consequences of feminism, written by Carolyn Moynihan at MercatorNet. (H/T Mary)
Excerpt:
Despite decades of feminism and gender role revision, we are still more shocked when mothers neglect, abuse and especially kill their children. But one does not have to look far into the lives of most of these women to find that the other side of the sexual revolution — what’s politely known as the “evolution” of the family — has played a significant role.
Casey Anthony is a single mother, living with her own parents, the father of her child nowhere to be seen, although there have been rumours of incest. Macsyna King was cohabiting with her twins’ father, Chris Kahui.
The stresses of single parenthood, with or without boyfriends, are well known. And the dangers of cohabitation for children are becoming clearer all the time. A recent US federal government study of child abuse and neglect shows the dramatically increased risks for children living in a home where there is an unrelated boyfriend — and even with their own parents if they are cohabiting. Sociologist Brad Wilcox comments:
This new federal study indicates that these cases are simply the tip of the abuse iceberg in American life. According to the report, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents. Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself in is a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend—especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself.
But children living with their own father and mother do not fare much better if their parents are only cohabiting. The federal study of child abuse found that children living with their cohabiting parents are more than four times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than their peers living in a home headed by their married parents. And they are three times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, a child is not much safer when she is living in a home with her parents if her parents’ relationship does not enjoy the legal, social, and moral status and guidance that marriage confers on relationships.
So how does it work?
Well, Mrs. Moynihan is right to talk about the sexual revolution as a cause of the problems that children face. The whole point of third-wave feminism is for women to have recreational sex “like men” and to pursue their careers “like men” – at the expense of marriage and parenting. The kinds of men that women will choose today for this recreational sex are completely different from the kinds of men that women used to choose when they wanted protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders. And that’s why women end up having sex with men who are not qualified to be husbands and fathers. Today, men who want to get married and to have a mother for their children are to be avoided. All of their demands on women to be wives and mothers are just “too strict”.
If a woman’s goal is recreational sex and a career, then she won’t choose a man who has demonstrated his ability to perform traditional husband/father roles. She will choose a man who is physically attractive, entertaining, non-judgmental and who won’t expect her to be a wife and mother. That’s why courting has been replaced with binge-drinking, hooking up and co-habitating. Religion, chastity and economics are out, and drinking, hook-ups and abortions are in. The problem is that when women choose to drift into relationships that start with selfish recreational sex, instead of with chastity and courting, then any children who happen along are more likely to be abused, neglected and impoverished.
The most important thing to many women who have been influenced by feminism is that they are happy all the time. And they think that they can extend their selfish pursuit of happiness into a lasting relationship – that men and children will somehow celebrate their selfishness. For some women, if the demands of children and men don’t make them happy, then they can just abort the children and divorce the men for any reason. What abortion really amounts to in practice is the refusal by women to be selective about who they have sex with, followed by the willingness to kill in order to avoid having their own happiness diminished by having to care for babies. And abortion is supported by many women today. (Men are slightly more pro-life than women)
Roommates of Casey Anthony’s former boyfriend described on Wednesday how the Florida mother partied at nightclubs and remained outgoing after her 2-year-old daughter’s death on June 16, 2008.
“She seemed normal. Happy. Like everything was fine,” said Nathan Lezniewicz on the second day of testimony in Casey Anthony’s first-degree murder trial in Orlando.
The case has gained national attention and drawn TV personalities including Nancy Grace and Geraldo Rivera to the courtroom. Casey Anthony, 25, faces the death penalty if convicted.
Prosecutors contend that she suffocated daughter Caylee Marie Anthony by wrapping duct tape around her head, nose and mouth. During opening statements Tuesday, the defense said the toddler drowned in the Anthony family’s backyard pool and no one alerted police about the accident.
Caylee wasn’t reported missing until July 15, 2008, by her grandmother, Cindy Anthony, who called 911 and told the dispatcher she had not seen the little girl for a month.
Lezniewicz roomed at the time with Casey’s then-boyfriend Tony Lazzaro and two other young college men at an Orlando apartment.
Lezniewicz said he was at a local nightclub when Casey entered a “hot body” contest. Jurors saw a photograph of her and Lezniewicz grinning at the club.
“She was partying, having a good time,” testified Roy “Clint” House, another roommate.
Today, many women don’t want men who tell her what’s right and what’s true – especially about religion and morality. Those men are “too strict” and “too demanding” – they tell her about the moral obligations that women have to husbands and children, and she doesn’t want to hear or have to do anything about it. As I argued before, it’s important to understand that encouraging women to make better decisions about men and sexual activity as part of the effort to protect children, born and unborn.
Singling out ‘runaway dads’ for censure, [David Cameron] said that such individuals should be treated like drunk drivers — people who are beyond the pale and upon whom should be heaped ‘the full force of shame’.
Now, excoriating ‘runaway’ or ‘deadbeat’ dads is a familiar refrain. We all know the scenario: feckless youths getting one girl pregnant after another and abandoning each one in turn, playing next to no part in the upbringing of the children they have serially fathered.
This is, indeed, reckless and reprehensible behaviour. But it is only part of a much more complex and deeply rooted problem.
Most pertinently, it totally ignores the fact that there is another feckless actor in this dysfunctional family drama — the mother, who may be having children by a series of different men.
In line with politically correct thinking, Mr Cameron presents such girls or women as the hapless victims of predatory males. But that is just plain wrong. For at the most fundamental level, this whole process is driven by women and girls.
In those far-off days before the sexual revolution, relations between the sexes were based on a kind of unspoken bargain.
Women needed the father of their children to stick around while they grew up, in return for which a woman gave a solemn undertaking to be faithful to this one man.
For his part, the father’s interests were served by being offered not just a permanent sexual relationship but a guarantee from the trust placed in his wife that the children were, indeed, his.
With the combination of the sexual revolution, the Pill and the welfare state, however, women’s interests changed. Suddenly they were being told sex outside marriage was fine, unmarried motherhood was fine — and crucially, that the welfare state would provide them with the means to live without male support.
Among upper-middle-class trendies, marriage became an irksome anachronism and ‘living together’ became fashionable.
At the bottom of the social scale, however, these permissive signals from above combined disastrously with widespread unemployment among young men, whose lack of income made them an unattractive marriage prospect.
As a result, girls decided that, while they wanted a baby, the available fathers were usually a waste of space and so they didn’t want them to remain a part of their lives.
These young men then treated the message that they weren’t wanted as a licence for irresponsibility. And so the ‘runaway dad’ was born.
To single out these boys for censure — while calling lone mothers ‘heroic’, as Mr Cameron did — is not only unfair and perverse, but will fail to get to grips with the problem.
If it is to be remedied, women and girls have to come to a different conclusion about where their interests lie.
That means the welfare state has to stop playing the role of surrogate husband through the benefits it gives single mothers.
READ THE WHOLE THING. As with Canada’s Barbara Kay, I am not in full agreement with Melanie on every topic. But she is awesome on this topic!
WINTERY KNIGHT 