Saving Youth from Church Exodus Not Enough, Says Youth Leader

FreeToThink »

Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I'd have to disagree that discipline is going to win over the hearts of teens, particularly those who are determined to discover their own identity - and what teenager isn't? This is just an opinion, but I think the fact that teens leave the church as soon as they graduate highschool (which generally coincides with their "emancipation" from parental rule) demonstrates that they were only attending church because they had to. If they were attending church because they wanted to, I doubt that would have changed when they left home.

I believe the answer lies in teaching children how to think about things so that they come to their own conclusion for why they want to do something. In this way, they will become internally committed to their own choice.

As an illustration, Robert B. Cialdini, Ph.D. theorized in his book "Influence", that "commitments are most effective when they are active, public, effortful, and viewed as internally motivated and not coerced."

*To support this, he performed a study with children testing both ideas. First he took children individually into a room and showed them a toy robot. He then told them that if they played with it, something bad would happen he then left the room. Out of 22 children, only one of them resisted the temptation to play with the robot.

Later he tried this experiment again with 22 different children. In this experiment, he brought them all into the room and taught them that it was wrong to play with the robot. (He does not say how.) A few weeks later he had a teacher bring the children individually into the room to take an exam. The teacher then left the room. This time almost 70% of children resisted the temptation to play with the toy.

While this study may not be completely conclusive, it illustrates the idea that strict discipline is most effective when the administrator of that discipline is present. I'm not arguing that discipline has no place, only that the problem of teens abandoning the church is probably the symptom of lack of committment to the church versus a lack of discipline.


* I don't have the the book handy at them moment so I'm repeating this information from memory. So if the numbers are a little off, please forgive me. I think that I have captured the spirit of the study.

The Price of Family Fragmentation

FreeToThink »

Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:42 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"What I told “BreakPoint” listeners about Britain yesterday is also true of the United States. In both instances, a decline in marriage and an increase in family fragmentation coincided with the introduction of legally sanctioned substitutes for traditional marriage (like civil unions and, now, same-sex marriages)."

Once again (as in his article on the decline of marriage and birth rates in Britian) Mr. Colson would have us believe that correlation implies causation - or in other words, the introduction of civil unions is causing familty fragmentation. Again, he is mating (apologies for the pun) two unrelated statistics.

In this country, there are 4 states allowing civil unions, 6 that allow domestic partnerships (California has both so it's inflating the statistic a little), and Hawaii has something called Reciprocal Benificiary Relationships. Only Massachusetts allows marriage of same sex couples. Of these states, only two allow opposite-sex couples to participate in anything other than a traditional marriage and both of those only allow this where at least one of the couple is over the age of 62. Clearly the insinuation that civil unions have a causal relationship with the decline in marriage rates is false.

Also, these facts call into question the Pope's statement which Mr. Colson quotes:
"The Pope has called these substitutes “dangerous and counterproductive as they inevitably weaken and destabilize the legitimate family based on matrimony.”

I'm not arguing with Mr. Cohen about the cost to taxpayers caused by unwed mothers and divorce, and this can be defined as "family fragmentation" as Mr. Colson does:

"The principal causes of this drop were the high divorce rate and the increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births. While the number of divorces has declined slightly in recent years, the percentage of children born to unmarried mothers has continued to grow.
As I said earlier, the costs of this family fragmentation are not limited to the children. As one expert wrote, 'Divorce and unwed childbearing create substantial public costs, paid by taxpayers.'

What you can't conclude is that by removing these "marriage substitutes", you will have had a positive finacial effect on the cost of family fragmentaion - as unwed mothers and the "married" couples that are getting divorced are not participating in these alternatives.

"...the most important thing government can do to fight family fragmentation is to stop promoting marriage substitutes."

"That is why, if you want to make a dent in the social and economic costs of family fragmentation... accept no substitutes!"

The only financial cost relating to the fragmentation of the family I can see here would be if we spent money to fight the unrelated civil-union legislation only to discover that we were throwing money away in the fight to abolish civil unions that could be helping educate young women and married couples.

The Demise of Marriage in Britain

FreeToThink »

Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

"These are the result of people living recklessly and always avoiding responsibility in a committed and faithful marriage."

I would be careful about what you say, especially when using terms like "always" and "never". This appears to me to be a completely unfounded statement. I can't find any information online that suggests that opposite-sex couples are even allowed to participate in civil-unions in the UK - which by the way, have only been in effect for a couple of years.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union)

If that's the case, suggesting civil-unions contribute decline in marriage rates (or childbirth rates) "in the UK" over the last 150 years is clearly misleading.

Also, there is a domain shift in this article from the subject "The Demise of Marriage in Britain" - which suggests that the article must be discussing issues with the family in "Britian" - to all of Europe:

"According to Morgan, the government has encouraged the creation of marriage substitutes, what she calls “Marriage Lite.” The best-known of these legally recognized cohabitations is “civil unions.” What started out as an accommodation for same-sex couples has become an alternative to marriage for millions of heterosexual Europeans."

Mr. Colson is quoting researcher Patricia Morgan who is suggesting that the (UK?) government has created marriage alternatives such as the civil union (which we have seen is probably not applicable to opposite-sex couples), and she then attempts to suggest that those same civil unions are a valid marriage alternative for all of Europe. This is clearly a false statement unless the "goverment" she is referring to is the goverment of Europe in its entirety. If she is discussing all of Europe, what relevance does that quote have in a discussion of the demise of marriage in "Britian"? ( The British government includes the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and 24 other bishops in the Hourse of Lords by the way - which suggests that at they are privy to spiritual guidance when discussing legislation.) Obviously, this quote is being used out of context and without more information we are forced to dismiss it as irrelevant.

For the record:
Upon further (but not exhaustive) searching, I found some information suggesting that there are certain rights for unmarried couples in the UK, but nothing resembling the rights conferred by a marriage. In fact, it is a common misconception there that common-law marriages are legal when they actually haven't been since 1753. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage)

The reason I bring this up to point out that we all have the reponsibility (leaders, reporters, and readers) to not jump to hasty conclusions (or condemnations) based on something as insubstantial as a news story or our own opinions.

The Demise of Marriage in Britain

FreeToThink »

Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

ProfessorX,

Your link does show a high number of atheists in the UK, but it doesn't prove that atheism has anything to do with the decline in marriage rates, let alone "human desolation." Can you post a link showing credible and repeatible studies demonstrating either of those two claims?

Additionally, the link between civil unions and low birth rates has not been shown to be direct. Correlation does not prove causation. At best it suggests a place to begin looking. There are any number of possible causes, though correlative evidence may suggest a simple explanation.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine that the cause of the decline in birth-rates in the UK was that couples have less desire to become parents (for whatever reason). In that case, you could theorize that it doesn't make financial sense to incur the high cost of marriage when you could get the same benefits at no cost in a civil union. In this scenario, the civil union is not the cause though there would be a correlation between the rise of civil unions vs. the decline of marriages. Doing away with civil unions would not fix the problem that couples do not wish to procreate. Perhaps a more loving approach (assuming it's desirable to convince couples to become parents) would be to educate them on the benifits of having a family and the neccessity of protecting family values?

Please remember that this hypothetical situation is only an illustration that it's possible that the statistics do not tell the whole story. Much more information is required to attempt to determine the causal factors. Also, it's never helpful to make comments that could be interpreted in a negative way, which is why I called your post abusive.

Schwarzenegger: No to Marriage Amendment

FreeToThink »

Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

TerryH,

If you read what I wrote again you'll see that I didn't suggest that the passage had nothing to do with marriage. In fact, I said that (paraphrasing) it is largely a directive to husbands and wives. I was only asking you to provide some explanation of how that section is relevant to discussion of the news story.

I find it difficult to imagine that interpretations without relevant support are not being adversely affected by the biases of the one doing the interpreting. I find this passage instructional in my own life - particularly verse 6 as it relates to the temptation to interpret passages in whatever manner I see fit.

1 Corinthians 4:4-6 (New International Version)
4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Also, along those same lines:

James 4:11-12 (New International Version)

11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it.
12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

The Demise of Marriage in Britain

FreeToThink »

Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

ProfessorX,

Mr. Colson is suggesting the decline in marriage is related to the rise of civil unions, which he goes on to say was an accomodation for same sex couples. Wether this correlation is 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc) is up for debate, but even he has not tried to imply that atheists are the root cause of the decline of marriage. Provocative (and unsbstantiated) comments which are in no way related to the story sounds a bit abusive to me.

Schwarzenegger: No to Marriage Amendment

FreeToThink »

Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

TerryH,let me provide a bit of friendly "reproof" to your post:

First, here is the actual definition of the term
reprove:
transitive verb
1: to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent
2: to express disapproval of
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reprove)

When posting quotes from other sources (even definitions), please provide a link or reference so that we can see where you're getting your information from. Lacking your source, it appears to me that you are not providing the actual definition of the word but synonyms instead. I'll spare you the english lesson and just say that synonyms are similiar words but don't neccessarily have the "same" meaning.

Second, if you are going to post scripture to support your opinion and the verses you post are not directly relevant and/or open to interpretation, please provide us with the logical reaoning and assumtions you are making so that we can understand you point better. The passages that you excerpted are largely concerned with the directive of husbands loving their wives (and vice versa) and how to go about that. The specific verse that you started with (Ephesians 5:10) is not even related to the following two as it is a continuation of verses Ephesians 5:8-9:

8: For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
9: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
10: Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

If we assume (which is not obvious) that the verses you posted are relevant, and you are helpfully providing a (correct) definition of the action we should take when the bible tells us to "reprove" the unfruitful works of darkness, the literal interpretation of that passage would have us gently or kindly correct the people who are the subject of this article. There is nothing in there about passing laws that deny them equal rights. However, as you are attempting to put a spin on the interpretation by ussing inexact language, the only assumption that we can make is that you are in fact attempting to decieve us by putting a biased spin on that passage. I thank you for the suggested reading though, I find this passage to be especially relevant:

Ephesians 5:6-7
6: Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7: Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

vain:
1: having no real value : idle, worthless
2: marked by futility or ineffectualness : unsuccessful, useless
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vain)