To conclude with "How the West Really Lost God," this morning I read (once again) about the correlation between prosperity, low crime, and the make-up of the family. Most are probably familiar with the statistics, which are that intact, natural families fair better both economically and socially in all categories (drug use, violence, single teen mothers, etc) and educationally; and that people with higher educations have, naturally, higher incomes, but also are much more likely to marry and remain married. The link makes sense, but only in a "common sense" sort of way; for, although it is obvious that two parents can make more money than one, why the differences in crime? And why the difference between divorced and remarried families with children and those of the natural family?
The book works to correlate religion and the family, claiming that they form a positive feedback - that is, each supports the other. Again, we see the correlation, but mostly in a common sense way. Religion stresses self-sacrifice and denial for the good of others as a moral, God given imperative, which can mean only good things for the duration of the family - and vice-versa, as both call for the same perspective. But couldn't a single mother stress these virtues all by herself? The statistical answer is "no." This does not mean that some don't, but as a whole, religion and intact biological families promote what we most consider to be good social values.
Why this is so depends on an inherent, or deep, understanding of what it means to be religious and a family member. That the idea of a transcendent and unmoving force legitimizes this lends tremendous weight to behavior and the sense of obligation. As the author of our book shows, tear one away from the other - or alter one (as was done at he Council of Lambeth for religion - or in changing divorce law or the availability of contraception for family, with both religion and family intertwined) and both are weakened. And with that, so are the recognized social goods mentioned above. That this happens is not readily understood by logic - it does not 'have to be, ' but it is.
For those of us with spiritual bents (such as myself), we see the importance of spirit in our lives, but this is not necessary to recognize the importance of the natural family and religion. The stats are clear. And yet - why are so many pushing to alter the fundamentals that have been with us for centuries? I believe it is from a short-sighted individualism (as opposed to a wise individualism - there is a profound difference), and it seems this attitude is in the ascendant. And as the author points out, the notion of family and faith are learned primarily in the family. Once people are taken out of that context, it may be that for many, the notion is lost - forever. These are things that cannot be taught, but which are deeply experienced. For instance, in the traditional marriage, cooperation, sharing, and sacrifice, especially for the children, is taken for granted - but it is NOT part of the law. One can also be selfish and parasitic in a marriage. We all know that is not how it should be. But this is learned, and can be lost.
It appears to me that as we irrevocably weaken the meaning of marriage and the solemnity of faith, we are headed down a certain path that has been trodden before: the development of a stronger and stronger state to make up for the absence of the family (financially) and family values (educationally and behaviorally), together with an expansion of personal varieties in life styles. It is, as the author points out, what the world had under the Roman Empire, although now we have means for an even more intrusive government and greater personal idiosyncrasies. This is, from my perspective, a negative direction. From the libertarian and libertine perspective, the negatives are not necessary, and again this is right logically; but statistics (again) disprove this optimism. There is something about the choices made from a simple individual perspective that separates them from those taken from concepts of a bedrock right and wrong and a conviction of responsibility.
If this seems a little too "church lady" for the reader, I understand - it does to me, too. But there are the numbers - and, more to the immediate point, the examples of the slippery slope. I would wish a truce at this point in the culture wars, but that does not seem possible. As one thing changes, a phalanx of people rush in to change others, building on the precedent. Now there appears to be an avalanche in this direction.
If only we could fly into the future! On the other hand, I always recall a phrase from "The Teachings of Don Juan" (decidedly NOT a traditional work). At one point, Don Juan tells our ignorant author, (paraphrase) "when the Spanish came, the knowledge of sorcery (what we call magic) was brought crashing down. But that was a good thing. It had gotten soft and was abused. Now that it has to be done in secret, those few left must be absolutely impeccable. There is no room left for institutional laziness." So will those few left from the old school of "God and Family" become better practiced at it? I don't know. Sometimes things, like the many arts and sciences of Rome, simply disappear with the culture. Our descendants will most certainly find out. FK
The book works to correlate religion and the family, claiming that they form a positive feedback - that is, each supports the other. Again, we see the correlation, but mostly in a common sense way. Religion stresses self-sacrifice and denial for the good of others as a moral, God given imperative, which can mean only good things for the duration of the family - and vice-versa, as both call for the same perspective. But couldn't a single mother stress these virtues all by herself? The statistical answer is "no." This does not mean that some don't, but as a whole, religion and intact biological families promote what we most consider to be good social values.
Why this is so depends on an inherent, or deep, understanding of what it means to be religious and a family member. That the idea of a transcendent and unmoving force legitimizes this lends tremendous weight to behavior and the sense of obligation. As the author of our book shows, tear one away from the other - or alter one (as was done at he Council of Lambeth for religion - or in changing divorce law or the availability of contraception for family, with both religion and family intertwined) and both are weakened. And with that, so are the recognized social goods mentioned above. That this happens is not readily understood by logic - it does not 'have to be, ' but it is.
For those of us with spiritual bents (such as myself), we see the importance of spirit in our lives, but this is not necessary to recognize the importance of the natural family and religion. The stats are clear. And yet - why are so many pushing to alter the fundamentals that have been with us for centuries? I believe it is from a short-sighted individualism (as opposed to a wise individualism - there is a profound difference), and it seems this attitude is in the ascendant. And as the author points out, the notion of family and faith are learned primarily in the family. Once people are taken out of that context, it may be that for many, the notion is lost - forever. These are things that cannot be taught, but which are deeply experienced. For instance, in the traditional marriage, cooperation, sharing, and sacrifice, especially for the children, is taken for granted - but it is NOT part of the law. One can also be selfish and parasitic in a marriage. We all know that is not how it should be. But this is learned, and can be lost.
It appears to me that as we irrevocably weaken the meaning of marriage and the solemnity of faith, we are headed down a certain path that has been trodden before: the development of a stronger and stronger state to make up for the absence of the family (financially) and family values (educationally and behaviorally), together with an expansion of personal varieties in life styles. It is, as the author points out, what the world had under the Roman Empire, although now we have means for an even more intrusive government and greater personal idiosyncrasies. This is, from my perspective, a negative direction. From the libertarian and libertine perspective, the negatives are not necessary, and again this is right logically; but statistics (again) disprove this optimism. There is something about the choices made from a simple individual perspective that separates them from those taken from concepts of a bedrock right and wrong and a conviction of responsibility.
If this seems a little too "church lady" for the reader, I understand - it does to me, too. But there are the numbers - and, more to the immediate point, the examples of the slippery slope. I would wish a truce at this point in the culture wars, but that does not seem possible. As one thing changes, a phalanx of people rush in to change others, building on the precedent. Now there appears to be an avalanche in this direction.
If only we could fly into the future! On the other hand, I always recall a phrase from "The Teachings of Don Juan" (decidedly NOT a traditional work). At one point, Don Juan tells our ignorant author, (paraphrase) "when the Spanish came, the knowledge of sorcery (what we call magic) was brought crashing down. But that was a good thing. It had gotten soft and was abused. Now that it has to be done in secret, those few left must be absolutely impeccable. There is no room left for institutional laziness." So will those few left from the old school of "God and Family" become better practiced at it? I don't know. Sometimes things, like the many arts and sciences of Rome, simply disappear with the culture. Our descendants will most certainly find out. FK
RSS Feed