The Sad Consequences of “Shacking Up”

“When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)”

As I wrote a few years ago, I believe that at the foundation of any great nation there must be a healthy view of and a great respect for traditional (biblical) marriage. Strong and healthy marriages lead to strong and healthy families. Strong and healthy families lead to strong and healthy communities. Strong and healthy communities lead to strong and healthy churches, schools, businesses, governments, and so on. Each of these institutions lies at the heart of any great nation.

Recently that Hollywood scholar Cameron Diaz gave us an illustration of the secular/godless worldview on marriage: “I do [think marriage is dead]. I think we have to make our own rules. I don’t think we should live our lives in relationships based off old traditions that don’t suit our world any longer.”

When it comes to redefining marriage, the first thing that comes to mind is, of course, gay marriage. As tragic as gay marriage is, however, I believe that our culture is faced with a greater problem on the marriage front: cohabitation—or to put it more plainly, “shacking up”—or to put it more spiritually, “living in sin.”

The current generation in America is shunning marriage for cohabitation at an unprecedented rate. According to the 2010 edition of the State of Our Unions report by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values, “The number of unmarried couples has increased dramatically over the past five decades. Most younger Americans now spend some time living together outside of marriage, and nonmarital cohabitation precedes most new marriages.”

According to the report, between 1960 and 2009, cohabitating couples in the U.S. increased more than fifteen-fold. Also, “About a quarter of unmarried women age 25 to 39 are currently living with a partner, and an additional quarter have lived with a partner at some time in the past. More than 60 percent of first marriages are now preceded by living together, compared to virtually none 50 years ago.”

Now, those of the worldview of Miss Diaz might ask, “so what? Why shouldn’t we make our own rules?” As is often the case, when we go our own way, ignoring the wisdom of the One who made us, there are tragic consequences. According to a recent federal study, the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, 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, according to W. Bradford Wilcox, “one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself is in a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend — especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself.”

According to the study, children who live with their cohabitating biological parents don’t fare much better. In these circumstances, children are more than four times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused and they are three times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. Again, according to Wilcox, “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.”

Also according to the study, not only does cohabitation do little to prepare couples for marriage (which is often the excuse for cohabitating), but “a substantial body of evidence indicates that those who live together before marriage are more likely to break up after marriage.”

The solution to this travesty goes far beyond simply uttering “I do.” However, the solution does begin with a simple step of recognizing that marriage is not a man-made institution that we are free to redefine using “our own rules”—at least not without devastating consequences.

Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Arabs Spring While Freedom Falls

As the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt spread across the Middle East, for months now we have heard the triumphant cries celebrating this “democratic” movement dubbed the “Arab Spring.” “We did our part,” declared the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman. “We killed Bin Laden with a bullet. Now the Arab and Muslim people have a chance to do their part — kill Bin Ladenism with a ballot — that is, with real elections, with real constitutions, real political parties and real progressive politics.”

However, as the “Arab Spring” burns across the Middle East—to Libya, Yemen, Syria, et al—it now seems that far too many Arabs are ready to trade one kind of tyranny for another. For example, in the first vote after Egypt’s Mubarak stepped down, the Egyptian people—by a whopping 78% to 22% margin—voted to give the Muslim Brotherhood dominant political power in the new parliament.

This should come as little surprise. Last June's Pew survey of Egyptians showed 59 percent backed Islamists, and, even more discouraging, 84 percent supported executing Muslims who change their religion. Thus, it seems that many Muslims have yet to understand the basic, most foundational tenet of liberty: there is no freedom without religious freedom.

Therefore, with religious freedom virtually nonexistent in nations where Islam dominates, it should also come as little surprise that of the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), as rated by the Economists Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy, none are full democracies, while 35 are authoritarian regimes (dictatorships). Of the Index’s 10 most authoritarian regimes, 7 of them are members of the OIC.

Clearly, by and large, Islam is an enforced religion. This begs the question, why do these Muslims fear religious freedom?

Renowned Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias (www.rzim.org) recalls a tense interview with the “number three man in the Islamic world, the chief Mullah in Jerusalem,” where Zacharias pointed out that the Koran actually says that there is no compulsion in religion. The Mullah agreed. Zacharias then said, “Are you telling me that a Muslim under you should be free to convert from Islam to Christianity?” The Mullah angrily disagreed.

“You are fooling with words,” Zacharias noted. “If there is no compulsion in religion, then there should be freedom to disbelieve it as well as believe it.” In other words, there is compulsion under Islam. Zacharias concluded, “Islam is not the fastest growing religion in the world. It is the fastest growing enforced religion in the world. If you take the foot off of the necks of the people in Iran, and some of these other countries, tens of thousands of young, so-called Muslim men and women, will make their turn to Christ.”

Thus, we see practically no religious freedom under Islam, and nearly no desire for it. Before applauding the “Arab Spring,” pundits on both sides would have done well to take note of this.

In opposing the bloody French Revolution, Edmund Burke (considered by many the father of modern conservatism) noted that, “When I see the spirit of liberty in action, I see a strong principle at work…but we ought to suspend our judgment until the first effervescence is a little subsided…until we see something deeper than the agitation of a troubled and frothy surface…

“I should therefore suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France, until I was informed how it had been combined with government; with public force; with the discipline and obedience of armies;…with morality and religion;…with peace and order; with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things too; and, without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.”

In other words, as George Will recently put it, “Before we congratulate people on their freedom, we should see what use they make of it.” There should be zero congratulations of democracy in the Middle East until religious freedom is received.

Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Obama Rode Bush's Cottails to Bin Laden

In the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s death, many on the left have rushed to congratulate and extol President Obama for this momentous act of justice. Liberal pundit David Corn declared that Dick Cheney owes Obama an apology. He also noted that Cheney “and other conservatives who denigrated Obama's devotion to national security have lost a much-valued possession: the Obama-is-weak-on-defense card.”

Writing for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Cynthia Tucker boldly anointed Obama with the “walks softly [and] carries a big stick” slogan. Lamenting the attacks against Obama as being weak on national security, she noted that, “The death of Osama bin Laden, in a raid executed under Obama’s explicit leadership, ought to quell that sort of foolish talk permanently.”

After bin Laden’s death, democratic consultant Bob Shrum pronounced the Obama presidency “renewed and transformed.” He went on to assert triumphantly that, “On the eve of big decisions about the debt ceiling and the budget, the president has new strength and credibility — and his Republican opponents and 2012 rivals have a stature gap that was always real but is now apparent.

“The gap will only widen as the gripping insider story of the nine-month saga of the mission to get Osama is told and retold. Not since the 13 days of the Cuban Missile Crisis has there been a story of leadership equal to this in drama and appeal. The best sellers are already on the way.” Wow.

The anonymous left-wing blog posters were bolder still. A young New York entrepreneur even created “Obama got Osama” t-shirts, reportedly making $120,000 in two hours. It was as if Obama, channeling his inner “force,” had fired a proton torpedo and singlehandedly destroyed the Death Star, saving us all from the evil Empire. (If Dick Cheney is Darth Vader, I suppose Obama can be Luke Skywalker.)

We shouldn’t be surprised. After all, remember, “Yes we can!” and “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!” and “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal?”

However, when one actually examines the facts behind the downfall of bin Laden, President Obama does not come across quite so heroic. As John Yoo points out, “In the war on terror, it is easy to pull the trigger—it is hard to figure out where to aim.” It turns out that Obama didn’t need “proton torpedoes;” all he needed were the military and intelligence architecture laid down by the Bush administration.

I’m talking about the Guantanamo Bay detention camp (Gitmo), enhanced interrogations, wiretapping, the Navy SEALs who are part of the Joint Special Operations Command, and so on. In other words, as Michael Barone notes, “For years we heard supposedly enlightened people excoriate our leaders for torture, lawlessness, unilateralism—the list goes on and on. Now the president they have wanted has used the tactics and methods they excoriated to get bin Laden.”

Oh, the irony. To get to what is almost certainly the high point of his presidency, Obama had to channel his inner George Bush—and liberals across the country are fawning all over him for it!

Remember Obama’s promise to close Gitmo? Remember the change in the “War on Terror” semantics incorporated by Obama’s national security team? The “Global War on Terror” became “Overseas Contingency Operation;” “enemy combatants” ceased to exist; and even the word “terrorist” was awkwardly avoided. I mean, Obama’s administration not only rejected Bush era policies, they didn’t even want the same terminology. But now Obama is the greatest thing since Eisenhower.

Don’t get me wrong. Obama deserves some credit for delivering the final blow in bringing Osama to justice. However, when drawing conclusions on Obama’s foreign policy and military strengths and successes, one must consider all of his actions and not an isolated success that was possible only because of the efforts of the previous administration.

Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Efforts to Defund Planned Parenthood Must Continue

The recent failure of the GOP to achieve the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood should not deter further efforts to remove taxpayer funds from the largest abortion provider in the U.S. In fact, the issue should remain front and center at every level in the 2012 political campaign.

Make no mistake about it, as Jordan Sekulow noted just prior to the latest federal budget deal, Planned Parenthood (PP) owns the Democrats. Therefore, for the Democrats, shutting down the federal government was worth it as long as it ensured continued taxpayer funding for PP.

In the middle of March of this year, when asked about amendments that would defund PP, Harry Reid was quoted as saying “not only no, but hell no.” Just hours prior to the budget agreement, Reid declared that the only issue holding up a budget deal was funding for PP. He declared, “Republicans want to shut down our nation's government because they want to make it harder for women to get the health services they need.”

It’s amazing that a U.S. senator can use the phrase “health services” in describing an organization that is dedicated to ending human life. However, this is how the liberal mind of the leader of the U.S. senate works.

Joining the chorus of PP supporters was the number three ranking Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer. “The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate,” said Schumer. Giving his best Winston Churchill impersonation, Schumer added, “Let me repeat that, so all those who want to stomp on women’s health and women’s rights can hear us loud and clear. The dangerous, ideological cuts to Planned Parenthood that passed the House are never, never, never going to pass the Senate.”

He may be right about this Senate, but the next one will almost certainly be a different story. In the 2012 election, the GOP has to defend only 10 U.S. Senate seats, while the Democrats have to defend 23. Of the 10 seats the GOP defends, six of them are from GOP strongholds (AZ, MS, TN, TX, UT, and WY). Of the other four seats, two have been in GOP hands for at least three election cycles (18 years). The other two seats belong to Scott Brown of Massachusetts and John Ensign of Nevada.

Of the 23 Democratic seats (two are actually independents who caucus with the Democrats), three are from GOP strongholds (MT, NE, ND), eight are from states that elected GOP governors in 2010 or 2009 (FL, MI, NJ, NM, OH, PA, VA, WI), and six are from states that elected a GOP senator in 2010 (FL, MO, ND, OH, PA, WI).

Thus, with the Republicans needing to flip only four seats for control, it is highly likely that the GOP will take charge of the U.S. senate after the 2012 elections. (Notice that FL, OH, PA, and WI elected GOP governors and senators in 2010.) If this happens, Republicans should act quickly and make Schumer eat his “never, never, never” declaration.

In light of the current economic climate, there has never been a better political climate for cutting off the over $360 million in federal funds that PP receives. Besides, our federal government has no business being in business with an abortion provider. “But no taxpayer funds are used for abortions—federal law already prohibits that,” PP supporters say. This is an asinine and absurd argument. With around 1/3 of its budget coming from taxpayer funds, it is clear that federal money enables PP to function and do what it does “best:” provide abortions.

Of course, with President Obama on record supporting what many consider infanticide, even if congress passes a bill defunding PP, he would almost certainly veto it. According to The Susan B. Anthony List, almost all current GOP candidates for president support defunding PP. This is an issue that pro-lifers need to keep a significant part of the 2012 campaign. In more ways than one, the U.S. federal government cannot afford its relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Facing the New “Red Menace”

“Are we good guys or bad guys?” the animated (cartoon) Little John asked Robin Hood in the 1973 Disney classic. “You know,” John continued, “Our robbing the rich to feed the poor?” “Rob?!” Robin exclaimed. Then, sounding much like today’s Democrats, he declared, “That’s a naughty word. We never rob; we just sort of borrow a bit from those who can afford it.” “Borrow?!” cried John. “Boy, are we in debt!”

I wonder how Little John would feel about $14 trillion of debt. Since the youth of America are going to pay for most of this, perhaps Disney should make a child’s film about the U.S. debt. They could call it Pinocchio: How Decades of Lies Grew the American Debt; or Alice in Entitlementland; or Fantasia: The Money Printer’s Apprentice. You get the idea.

It seems that the idea of Democrats being compared to Robin Hood is gaining in popularity.

Just two days after I transcribed the little cartoon exchange with the idea for this column, on February 28, 3M Chief Executive Officer George Buckley called President Barack Obama “anti-business,” adding, “I judge people by their feet, not their mouth.” Buckley told the Financial Times, “We know what his instincts are. They are Robin Hood-esque. He is anti-business. There is a sense among companies that this is a difficult place to do business. It's about regulation, taxation, seemingly anti-business policies in Washington…”

According to recent reports, by the end of this fiscal year, September 30, the total U.S. debt will equal nearly $15.5 trillion, and for the first time since 1947, will surpass the total U.S. GDP. All of this red ink, according to Indiana Governor and possible GOP presidential candidate Mitch Daniels, is our new “Red Menace.”

Of course this “menace” looms not only in the federal government, but in state and local governments across the country. And, of course, just as with the communist threat, liberals all over the U.S. are finding themselves on the wrong side of history.

Every year Moody’s publishes its State Debt Medians Report. According to Moody’s 2010 report, “Debt burden is one of many factors that Moody’s uses to determine state credit quality. In considering debt burden, the focus is largely on Net Tax Supported Debt,” which is defined as “debt secured by state operating resources which could otherwise be used for state operations. Any debt to which state resources are pledged for repayment is considered to be net tax-supported debt.”

Again, according to Moody’s 2010 report, “Two measures of state debt burden – debt per capita and debt as a percentage of personal income – are commonly used by analysts to compare the debt burden of one state to another.”

The states with the most debt per capita: 1.) Connecticut 2.) Massachusetts 3.) Hawaii 4.) New Jersey 5.) New York 6.) Delaware 7.) California 8.) Washington 9.) Rhode Island 10.) Oregon.

The states with the largest debt as a percentage of personal income: 1.) Hawaii 2.) Massachusetts 3.) Connecticut 4.) New Jersey 5.) New York 6.) Delaware 7.) California 8.) Kentucky 9.) Washington 10.) Rhode Island

Notice the “blueness?”

As most everyone now knows, especially given the recent events in Wisconsin, one of the greatest contributors to local and state debt is pension liabilities. However, in Moody’s numbers above, pension liabilities were not included. Moody’s has now changed that.

Earlier this year, Moody’s Investors Service released a report on state debt that included a broader approach to measuring a state’s financial health. As the Financial Times put it, “In a bid to give a broader picture of state finances, Moody’s combined their net tax supported debt and unfunded pension liabilities to assess how leveraged states are.” In other words, Moody’s is now calculating a state’s debt burden by including the unfunded pension obligations owed to state employees.

When state pension liabilities are included, the top ten states in total debt are: 1.) Connecticut 2.) Hawaii 3.) Massachusetts 4.) New Jersey 5.) Illinois 6.) Alaska 7.) Rhode Island 8.) Kentucky 9.) Mississippi 10.) West Virginia.

Again, the blue states lead.

As I noted a couple of years ago, U.S. states have frequently been called “laboratories of democracy.” If you want to see how something will work in the federal government, look to the states.

Given the picture painted above, it is quite clear where liberals have taken the state governments of which they have been in control. For the most part, it is also quite clear on which side liberals stand with our new “Red Menace.” Sadly, it is not with the “good guys.”

Copyright 2011, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com