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.
The Hoover Institute at Stanford University tweeted this article.
Excerpt:
The Democrats’ position in the negotiations to raise the debt limit and deal with runaway government debt can be summarized in one mantric phrase: the rich must “pay their fair share” in taxes. White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer, for example, said a day before the Obama’s Sunday summit with Congressmen that any deal requires a “balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share.” Earlier this year, Illinois Congressman Jan Schakowsky introduced legislation called the Fairness in Taxation Act, which she justified by saying “It’s time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share.” Clearly, the Democrats think this is a winning formula going into the critical 2012 elections, despite the historically verified fact that raising tax rates on top earners will not over time generate more tax revenues.
Some political Socrates needs to challenge this formula by asking for a definition of “fair.” Clearly, having the top 10% of taxpayers pay 70% of all income taxes––while nearly half of taxpayers pay nothing––isn’t considered “fair” by those who want to increase taxes on high earners. So what would be fair? Having the top 10% pay 80%, or 90%, or 100%? The U.S. already has the most progressive tax system among 24 OECD countries, ahead of socialist heartthrobs like Sweden and Norway, so what more do Democrats want?
It might be a good idea to send this article to your friends, and bookmark it in case you get into a debate.
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.
WINTERY KNIGHT 