The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Happy families = a healthy economy > Comments

Happy families = a healthy economy : Comments

By Babette Francis, published 2/5/2013

Social and economic conservatives don't necessarily see eye to eye on the rights of the unborn child.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
You argue, "Moynihan wrote that "A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken homes, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future - that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure - that is not only to be expected, it is very near to inevitable.""

Does seem to describe the perceived reality of so many Islamic societies despite their mandation of traditional marriages and male authority...

But ignoring that, you've convinced me, Babette...

"The middle and upper classes in Australia and those who are tertiary educated, more or less follow this formula but many in the lower socio-economic groups seem trapped in a cycle of poverty fuelled by the absence of stable marriages, a revolving door of serial de facto relationships and out of wedlock births."

Sounds like you are committed to either, banning the lower classes from Australia (old ugg boots and trackie dacks are always inappropriate street wear), or
abortion being compulsory for everyone outside marriage.
Posted by WmTrevor, Thursday, 2 May 2013 8:34:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken homes, dominated by women..."

How would you suggest we stop "allowing" these broken homes Babette? Do we force couples to stay together? Do we force loveless couples to stay in the home for the 'good' of the children?

I am all for happy families, whether they be single parent families, traditional families, families with Gay parents , extended families, or whatever.

Unhappy families can occur in any of these sorts of families.

I would suggest the unhappiest families are those strictly religious traditional families where a strict hold on the wife and kiddies is maintained by the 'head' of the household...you know, the one who controls all the others under the fear of some wrathful god or two?
Posted by Suseonline, Thursday, 2 May 2013 10:04:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The natural family, the first government in the social order, is under brutal assault by the union of the two towers - the singularity the 'Market-State'. As Hannah Arendt explained, the essence of totalitarianism is the destruction of intermediary institutions between the individual and the state, most importantly family and church.

Today this is done incrementally by bureaucratic/legal means. The cracking open and flattening every mediating institution or assocation prior to the state. The rationality of tradition, the normativity of nature and moral teleology, the deliverances of the Good News of Jesus, are systematically 'debunked' and ultimately proscribed as sources of independence and freedom apart from the state. There is to be only weak atomised individuals facing up to a massive central power - the entire new ruling class is in thrall to this delectable symbol. The ABC will not even staff conservatives who might challenge their fanaticism. Pretending to be news while begging questions announcing news with "anti-gay marriage" or "anti abortion" instead of "marriage supporters" "pro-human child supporters". So neurotic and fearful that their world view is correct that they hide and acquire taxpayer money by stealth to promote their propaganda.

The World Congress of Families is the only place progressive politics is being discussed - the ruling class is crystallised and static and its fate is bound to the One Ring of central rule. It is at war with the dynamism of a variegated society.

God bless Babette Francis and the organisers and attendees. It is from these people we will find the leaders of the future.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 3 May 2013 9:14:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And when the world is ultimately over populated (if it isn't already) and we run out of non renewable resources, what do we do. Perhaps a cry to a non existent God in the "sure and certain hope" that we will be saved.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 3 May 2013 12:16:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is difficult to argue with the statistics. Studies have consistently shown that the "traditional" home arrangement of a stable family grouping is less likely to breed crime, or criminals.

The rejection of these values may have many different starting-points, some cultural, some economic. But once an egg is employed in the production of an omelette, getting it back inside the chicken is a touch problematic. So it will be of some academic interest to discover how the Australian Family Association intends to bring this about.

"How to break this cycle will be addressed at the World Congress of Families 7 and academics and the Australian government should take note."

I'm sure they will. Just how much notice will of course depend upon the quality of the proposed remedies. Martin Ibn Warriq, for example, offers...

>>The rationality of tradition, the normativity of nature and moral teleology, the deliverances of the Good News of Jesus...<<

...which are of course unachievable outside a theocracy. Sadly, very few theocracies provide an environment in which freedom counts for anything much. Especially for women.

In the article, Babette Francis hints at economic sanctions against 'sinners':

"Already there is much angst about the cut to single-mothers' benefits..."

Which at first glance indicates that she might like to see it withdrawn completely, and in doing so merely condemns them to a deepening spiral of penury. Which, by the way, might not do much for the welfare of the kids concerned.

But no, apparently the answer lies in...

"...government efforts to re-integrate the father into the lives of his children - not only in terms of maintenance payments but as a role model and authority figure"

At which point we move into fantasy-land. What effect might it have, I wonder, on statistics of home violence, when patently unwilling parties are forced to live together?

More significantly, in what kind of world would such a procedure be, even remotely, implementable? It would have to be a rigid, totalitarian regime, with a fixed, immovable set of values, as to how people should live and conduct themselves.

Welcome to Saudi Arabia.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 3 May 2013 1:27:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Pericles, I think you'll find secularists like yourself are the religious pluralists and are happily Islamising their societies, concomitantly their preaching of sexual liberation is devastating society such that we can't even reproduce ourselves and Islam is increasingly demographically assertive. And both secularism and Islam are voluntaristic, (will/desire trumps reason) so you've learned your lesson from your rulers well, you're both confused and invert what truth you do posses at the same time. You can see why your "welcome to Saudi Arabia" speaks more like a repressed wish than anything else. You can see why political progress looks much more likely from within organisations who value the family, thank you very much.

"Present-day Western governments conduct all the normal activities of traditional, preliberal governments, and then some. They confer honors, establish holidays, educate the young, determine family law, support people in their troubles, define crimes and determine how serious they are, spend a very large part of the national income, and try to reshape institutions, attitudes, and personal relationships in the interest of what they believe to be just. **How could such a comprehensive scheme of activity possibly be rational without an overall view of what to promote and what to curtail?** If the sole purpose of these efforts, which pervade all aspects of life, is maximization of equal freedom, without regard to the effect on other goods, the efforts are fanatical. Why is fanaticism in the name of freedom and equality better than fanaticism in the name of virtue or Godís will?" http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1815

I don't think Pericles is willing, but for others who want some understanding of political philosophy, the internal link to Remi Brague's ďAre Non-Theocratic Regime's Possible?Ē will help. http://ethikapolitika.org/2012/03/21/sacred-ambivalence-reflection-remi-bragues-are-non-theocratic-regimes-possible/
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 3 May 2013 2:53:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy