What's happened? What can we do?

[Elder]

The traditional family's are on the drop, and I'd like to know 2 things. Why? What can we do about it? They've worked great for thousands of years now, why are we having so much trouble keeping them now? How can we fix this? How can we stop this? I have some of my own ideas, but I'd like to hear yours first.

[Reverend Blair]

Perhaps it is on the drop because it has outlived its usefulness. It isn't disappearing though, instead it is evolving into something that individuals in "alternative families" find matches their circumstances better.

Why would we do anything about it?

[Elder]

Ok, aside from the fact that the number of traditional families is dropping (which is no proof of what you say at all), what evidence do you have that they have outlived their usefullness? They're still the only way I want my children raised. Shouldn't every child get both a Father and a Mother? Most kids who don't have both usually wish they did, no? It's just the best way for kids to be raised IMHO, and as kids are the future, I'm taking a little interrest, along with my own concerns for my family.

[Reverend Blair]

I know a pair of lesbians who are raising two kids. They are, actually, doing it in a rather traditional way because one of them stays home. That is not a traditional family though, because there are two mothers.

I know several single parents who are raising their kids with the help of day cares, family and friends. The kids are turning out as well as the kids of married couples in the same peer group.

I know several couples where both parents work. Again they depend on relatives, friends, and daycares a lot. The kids are turning fine.

I know people who have been or are being raised by grandparents or aunts and uncles because the parents, for one reason or another, cannot do it. Again the kids are turning out fine.

I know people who are living as extended families, even though they aren't necessarily related. Those kids actually seem to be brighter and more personable than most.

The traditional family...father works, mother stays home, kids go to school...is less common than it used to be. Over the course of history it is not the only model though. Children have been raised in every condition from polygamy to being brought up by siblings who were really children as well. The traditional family is a relatively modern invention.

[Michael Hardner]

Our society is geared towards concentrating on the self. In the end, it becomes anti-spiritual.

Mass media has replaced religion as the arbiter of what is acceptable in our society. This has had both positive and negative effects, but it seems to have led us to an absence of meaning in our lives, or maybe just a lack of consensus as to what is meaningful.

What has to happen is that society will have to recognize that we need a moral and spiritual consensus to progress and thrive as a healthy community. I think that this means we will become as liberal as the current sitcom writers are (ie accepting gays, etc.) but then more close-knit and conservative in a way.

[Hugo]

The children of single-parent families are more likely to commit crimes as juveniles and adults. That comes from Wade C. Mackey, who is a professor of anthropology at El Paso Community College in Texas and the author of Fathering Behaviors.

Young black males from single parent households are twice as likely to become criminals as those who have two parents at home. If that young black male comes from a neighbourhood with an abundance of other single-parent households, that chance is tripled. That comes from a study conducted for Department of Health and Human Services.

Interestingly, a Canadian study found that an increase of $100-200 in annual welfare payments increased the odds that a poor woman would become a single parent by 5%. In the US, a 50% increase in the value of food stamps led to a 43% increase in fatherless households.

This problem is well-documented and judged extremely serious. Experts have testified before Senate committees that the increasing dearth of two-parent households will create an escalating crime level for the next 15 years, assuming the problem was eradicated today.

Regarding same-sex parents:

The National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network reports that "The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple." I'm sure we need no primer on the results upon children of a violent household.

A major Australian newspaper reported of a British sociologist's review of 144 academic papers on homosexual parenting: "Children raised by gay couples will suffer serious problems in later life, a study into parenting has found. The biggest investigation into same-sex parenting to be published in Europe claims children brought up by gay couples are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and be confused about their sexuality."

The Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry published a study of 4,000 high school students by Harvard Medical School, which found that "gay-lesbian-bisexual youth report disproportionate risk for a variety of health risk and problem behaviors...engag(ing) in twice the mean number of risk behaviors as did the overall population."

"GLB orientation was associated with increased...use of cocaine (and other illegal) drugs. GLB youth were more likely to report using tobacco, marijuana, and cocaine before 13 years of age. Among sexual risk behaviors, sexual intercourse before 13 years of age, sexual intercourse with four or more partners...and sexual contact against one's will all were associated with GLB orientation."

Associated Press reported last June that a "new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents...are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves...(and) grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations." This might not be a problem, except for the fact that the Center for Disease Control reports that youths who experiment with homosexual relationships are between 17 and 21 times as likely to contract various STDs as those who are not.

[August1991]

The traditional family's are on the drop, and I'd like to know 2 things.

The traditional family...father works, mother stays home, kids go to school...is less common than it used to be.

I disagree with the basic premise of this thread. A walk through any cemetery or even a little knowledge of one's own family history will quickly show numerous examples where children were raised, for example, by one parent, two aunts, where a grandfafter replaced a father, a single aunt replaced a mother. All of these situations were common in the past largely because of disease and early death. Difficult transportation meant families were often separated for long periods of time.

Hugo, your numerous citations carry an insidious bias: for the most part, this research is conducted by the same people who benefit from the government funds allocated to solve the "problem". This is like a dentist with an insured patient. It is not surprising that the dentist discovers "serious problems" that need fixing.

The present is different from the past in that we have more technology, including a better understanding of the universe around us. More people have more choices now than ever before. As individuals, we have more freedom. How is that "bad" or how does it lead to a "bad" society?

[Hugo]

Hugo, your numerous citations carry an insidious bias: for the most part, this research is conducted by the same people who benefit from the government funds allocated to solve the "problem".

I disagree. I think that sociologists and psychiatrists working at universities will not benefit if the government allocates funds to solving the problems they find. They are paid to research, not to find specific results. Those were the researchers conducting virtually all of the studies I cited.

If you have some studies that show that single-parent households do not lead to increased crime, or that same-sex parents do not lead to increased sexual identity and behavioural problems or incidence of disease, please share it.

[Michael Hardner]

If you have some studies that show that single-parent households do not lead to increased crime, or that same-sex parents do not lead to increased sexual identity and behavioural problems or incidence of disease, please share it.

Actually, Hugo, the studies you quote do not show anything of the kind.

When analyzing statistics, it's important to separate correlation from causation. Just because a black person, or a single-parent child is more likely to fall into one statistical group or another, it doesn't mean that the distinguishing feature is the cause.

Confusing correlation and causation can lead to some very incorrect and dangerous conclusions. If my skin turned black overnight, I wouldn't be more likely to commit crime. If my wife died, I wouldn't become a worse parent.

We have to fall back on common sense in these matters. What is most important is that a child have a loving and stable home.

[Hugo]

We have to fall back on common sense in these matters. What is most important is that a child have a loving and stable home.

The simple fact is that the "loving and stable home" you seek is less available in single-parent households or in same-sex parent households. The correlation has been clearly documented.

As I say, if you have contradictory evidence you are welcome to cite it. But I find it interesting that both you and August disagree with me and have not cited a single source to back yourselves up.

If my wife died, I wouldn't become a worse parent.

No, and if I had been raised in Nazi Germany I wouldn't necessarily be a Nazi, either. But what we are discussing here is trends, and as I said, the issues of race and poverty sink into irrelevancy when faced with the correlation between youth crime and single-parent households.

That means that the only significant correlation is the single-parent aspect. Race is insignificant. Poverty is insignificant. Geographical area is insignificant except inasmuch as it puts a child in an area with a high proportion of single-parent households.

Tell me what the true factor behind this correlation between juvenile and adult crime and being raised in a single-parent home is, Michael, if it's not what I claim.

[August1991]

I think that sociologists and psychiatrists working at universities will not benefit if the government allocates funds to solving the problems they find.

No, they benefit from research funds to investigate the "problem" further.

But what we are discussing here is trends, and as I said, the issues of race and poverty sink into irrelevancy when faced with the correlation between youth crime and single-parent households.

People with lighters and people who smoke are so closely correlated that it is too easy to conclude that lighters cause cancer. I think that's Hardner's argument. The social sciences are rife with correlation masquerading as theory. Without a clear theory explaining the connection between smoking and cancer, I would be suspicious of any study observing a statistical correlation.

But I find it interesting that both you and August disagree with me and have not cited a single source to back yourselves up.

Extremely good point. But since this is an Internet forum, I thought I'd try to make an argument out of thin air.

Tell me what the true factor behind this correlation between juvenile and adult crime and being raised in a single-parent home is, Michael, if it's not what I claim.

The fact is that crime statistics have been dropping steadily in the US over the past 15 years or so. This is due to a combination of factors.

It is certain that in a single parent family, children get less parental attention. But then that it is true in familiies with many children, and was certainly true in the past when parents worked longer hours with fewer vacations.

We have to fall back on common sense in these matters. What is most important is that a child have a loving and stable home.

There are many exceptions but on balance (as Hugo said, it's a question of "trend"), I have to agree - with one point. It's not the home as such but the environment.

The question seems to be whether children, on average, grew up in a better environment in the past than they do now.

[Michael Hardner]

The simple fact is that the "loving and stable home" you seek is less available in single-parent households or in same-sex parent households. The correlation has been clearly documented.

But the cause has not been. You therefore can't say that homosexuality or single-parent homes are the cause of the situation.

It would be like saying criminals are more likely to be non-white, therefore they should have to pay more for theft insurance, etc.

As I say, if you have contradictory evidence you are welcome to cite it. But I find it interesting that both you and August disagree with me and have not cited a single source to back yourselves up.

You don't have any evidence of anything. You have a correlation.

I can show you correlations that show that the number of telephone poles in your neighbourhood is a good indicator of your likelihood to commit crime. If I plant a telephone pole in front of your house, will that make you steal ? Of course not.

There may be many reasons that homosexuals are more likely to be in abusive relationships, but you can't blame it on the homosexuality, based on the evidence.

No, and if I had been raised in Nazi Germany I wouldn't necessarily be a Nazi, either. But what we are discussing here is trends, and as I said, the issues of race and poverty sink into irrelevancy when faced with the correlation between youth crime and single-parent households.

I'm not sure that that's true. There's probably a correlation between youth crime and poverty. There's probably a greater correlation between youth crime and whether your family was involved in crime.

But unless you can show causation, you're only supposing that you know the cause.

I wouldn't support blaming any German alive in 1945 for World War II either.

That means that the only significant correlation is the single-parent aspect. Race is insignificant. Poverty is insignificant. Geographical area is insignificant except inasmuch as it puts a child in an area with a high proportion of single-parent households.

Tell me what the true factor behind this correlation between juvenile and adult crime and being raised in a single-parent home is, Michael, if it's not what I claim.

You're basically saying "if the theory I'm trying to prove is incorrect, then correct it" But my point is that you can't use correlations as a basis for establishing cause.

Obviously there are many factors in producing a young criminal. But if we choose to focus on one over another, we're only showing our biases.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Hardner,

Our society is geared towards concentrating on the self. In the end, it becomes anti-spiritual.

Mass media has replaced religion as the arbiter of what is acceptable in our society.

You have hit the nail on the head with this one.

Spiritual, schmiritual, that which serves Mammon and greed are what is rewarded in society today. Years ago, (Not that many I might add) the family was 'sacred'. Now, nothing but the almighty dollar is.

Mass media has not only replaced religion, but the parents as well. Mass media relishes the opportunity, for they can create their own market on the 'tabula rasa' of each new generation, and influence it accordingly.

As for Hugo's crime stats, I agree that single parent homes could be more likely to generate criminals, because mass media becomes the parent 'in absentia', and The Sopranos, et al, become the only input for moral guidance.

[Digby]

The Spirit of whoreing have caused them to err .

Mystery Babalon the Great the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth

seven hills = rome

the merchants of the earth are waxed rich with her delicacies , Christmas Easter , Halloween ect /.

Its The Mother church setting in Rome , Her Protesting Daughters are are running lose every where else .

Modern Christianity is the problem , its a Satanic counterfiet , its there to drive the sensible people away from seeking God and his morals , and thus its the disease that makes our society fall .

Hosea 4 will tell you how it makes us sick .

We all need to look harder for the needle in the haystack , if we don't ezekiel 5 will be our reality .

Narrow is the Way ,

How to find?

I am the same yesterday today and forever ,Don't buy a Changeing God

Also Here is the patience of the saints , here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus . Don't settle for less ,,,,,,,,,,,,,no lie is from the truth , NO LIE . not even a little one ,.

[Hugo]

You don't have any evidence of anything. You have a correlation.

As August has alluded to, the likely cause of these problems with teenage/adult crime, sexual problems etc. is not the fact that they have a single-parent home, but of parental neglect, lack of attention and role models etc.

However, one way to guarantee parental neglect, lack of attention and inappropriate role models is to have a single-parent home. It's a cause of the cause. There's just less attention, fewer good role models, less time, less money. You said:

If my wife died, I wouldn't become a worse parent.

Actually, you would. You'd have a choice between a rock and a hard place. You can either work full-time to provide for your kids materially, but then between full-time work and running a household it's unlikely you'll have much time left for actually raising them.

Or you can go on welfare, spend plenty of time with them but ensure that they are at a material disadvantage so they aren't eating much nutritious food, aren't able to participate in extra-curricular activities and sports, can't get good dental coverage etc.

Either way, your parenting has suffered a huge blow. You can possibly sidestep a lot of problems if your wife had a big life insurance policy, if you won the lottery etc. however, most people in that situation do not have those safety nets.

As for Hugo's crime stats, I agree that single parent homes could be more likely to generate criminals, because mass media becomes the parent 'in absentia', and The Sopranos, et al, become the only input for moral guidance.

In the absence of two parents, children are likely to fill the gap. Not only mass media but also far worse substitutes such as criminal gangs may act in loco parentis.

There may be many reasons that homosexuals are more likely to be in abusive relationships, but you can't blame it on the homosexuality, based on the evidence.

Bearing in mind the apparently huge problems homosexuals have with drug abuse, suicidal tendencies, violent behaviour, decreased lifespan and so forth, combined with the fact that (as several Dutch studies have shown) these problems get worse with societal acceptance, not better, we can surmise that homosexuality is not the causing factor of these problems but whatever underlying psychological problem is causing the sexual identity crisis is probably also causing the tendency towards self-destructive behaviour. In any case, people with violent and self-destructive tendencies do not make good parents no matter what causes those tendencies.

Our society is geared towards concentrating on the self. In the end, it becomes anti-spiritual.

As an aside, I'd like to add that our society has always concentrated on the self. Cultures that have not were those like feudal Japan, but Western society has always focused on the self.

The difference is how that focus is interpreted. Nowadays, the focus is upon "finding yourself" and "discovering yourself", rather than upon "improving yourself." I blame this for a lot of our spiritual problems today. It's easy to find yourself. Me, I'm sitting at my computer. What we need to ask is how we can be better human beings.

[CanadianPatriot]

It depresses me to see how our society has deteriorated. The divorce rate has sky rocketed in the past few years and now same sex couples are raising kids... is there any hope for a better tomorrow? Our children are being starved of role models. It will only continue to get worse as kids are confused by there upbringing and are unable to sort through there confusion before they themselves start raising children and so the viscious cycle starts. We need to break this cycle now-- before it gets out of control. The government should encourage traditional families-- a married, heterosexual couple with children. Divorce has become an easy out. People don´t know how to work through their problems anymore. At the first sign of trouble in their relationships they bail! Divorce should be discouraged. Its become way to accepted. This breakdown of the traditional family in our society can lead only to worse things down the road.

[Michael Hardner]

As August has alluded to, the likely cause of these problems with teenage/adult crime, sexual problems etc. is not the fact that they have a single-parent home, but of parental neglect, lack of attention and role models etc.

However, one way to guarantee parental neglect, lack of attention and inappropriate role models is to have a single-parent home. It's a cause of the cause. There's just less attention, fewer good role models, less time, less money. You said:

QUOTE 

If my wife died, I wouldn't become a worse parent.

Actually, you would. You'd have a choice between a rock and a hard place. You can either work full-time to provide for your kids materially, but then between full-time work and running a household it's unlikely you'll have much time left for actually raising them.

You're right. That was a bad example.

I agree that single-parent family versus two-parent family is inferior. That's just common sense.

QUOTE 

There may be many reasons that homosexuals are more likely to be in abusive relationships, but you can't blame it on the homosexuality, based on the evidence.

Bearing in mind the apparently huge problems homosexuals have with drug abuse, suicidal tendencies, violent behaviour, decreased lifespan and so forth, combined with the fact that (as several Dutch studies have shown) these problems get worse with societal acceptance, not better, we can surmise that homosexuality is not the causing factor of these problems but whatever underlying psychological problem is causing the sexual identity crisis is probably also causing the tendency towards self-destructive behaviour.

It's wrong to attribute a cause based on those stats.

In any case, people with violent and self-destructive tendencies do not make good parents no matter what causes those tendencies.

Common sense.

As an aside, I'd like to add that our society has always concentrated on the self. Cultures that have not were those like feudal Japan, but Western society has always focused on the self.

The difference is how that focus is interpreted. Nowadays, the focus is upon "finding yourself" and "discovering yourself", rather than upon "improving yourself." I blame this for a lot of our spiritual problems today. It's easy to find yourself. Me, I'm sitting at my computer. What we need to ask is how we can be better human beings.

I agree with this too.

I'm sticking to my point about stats. But in some cases, it's just common sense. I don't think it's been statistically proven that smoking causes cancer either, but common sense (and biological experiments) have probably proven it.

[DAC]

The original question was, "How can we restore and strengthen the traditional family". We've diverted into a question of whether that is desirable, which is both a valid and interesting question. I've been watching and thinking, and am ready, I think to throw in some thoughts.

First of all, the debate about statistics and causes, I think, has become a red herring. The bottom line is that outside of mathematics, an absolute proof of anything is extremely difficult. The best we do is to present theories that have some broad fit. In the physical sciences, which are less complex, we agree that a theory is mistaken and needs revision if a single counter-example can be found. In the social "sciences", that eliminates everything.

We outlaw child porn because there is a clear statistical connection between it and child abuse. The statistical connection does not prove a cause-effect relationship, and it is almost certain that some who indulge in child porn do not go on to abuse children. But the connection is clear, whatever the actual cause, and because the consequences are extremely bad, we make all child porn use a crime.

There is a statistical correlation between homosexual behaviour and family problems. Nobody seems to deny that. That is sufficient for us to say at least that we don't want to encourage homosexual families. Personally, I would say that until the homosexual movement gets together and makes very plain that groups such as NAMBLA have no place in their movement - that means excluding them from gay pride parades, for example - we should decline to allow homosexuals to adopt children. But at least there are grounds not to encourage formation of homosexual families.

That leads back to the original question. How do we strengthen and encourage traditional families?

I'd like to broaden the definition of a traditional family, a bit, because what we think of as the traditional family has really only been established in the western world in the last century or so. Before that in our society, and still in many parts of the world, the pattern is what is called the extended family. Children growing up and marrying do not move away from home, but continue as a family group, in which, for example, grandparents who can no longer manage heavy physical work watch over the children, while the parents work. Usually the children as they grow up begin to take on an increasing share in the family business. Through that learn both the skills and the habit of working. Child care is not assigned to strangers who may or may not support the family values, but to those who are likely the core leaders in those family values. Children have both a safe and friendly environment in which to grow. There is a lot to be said for that setup. However, barring some horrible disaster, I doubt we can return to it in the foreseeable future.

The first step towards strengthening traditional families is to structure our taxes and our social services to make "family" beneficial. Change the tax code so that two people who are married, whether they are on a single income or a double income, can automatically share their income(s) for tax purposes and file separate returns. Structure social services so that single mothers do not lose benefits if they marry, unless the man they marry has sufficient income that they are clearly better off in marriage. Doing those things takes away economic incentives for avoiding marriage. It encourages two parent families.

Next step - though I am right wing, as a Christian I believe in compassionate conservative views - structure our social services in such a way that it is possible for every family with children to make it without the mother being forced to work. Statistics I have seen are quite clear that children generally do better with their mother at home caring for them than they do in day care.

Third step, work to restore the acceptance of parental authority. Recognize that children, even when they get into their teens, do not yet have the experience to make good decisions in all things. They are quick to try new things, quick to extend themselves, and need parental restraint. It's interesting that often they equate lack of parental rules with lack of love. Years back I read a book by David Wilkerson, Parents on trial. Wilkerson was working in the slums of New York with children, many of them runaways, caught up into gangs and drugs and crime. He said that he heard from those children, again and again, words to the effect, "My parents don't love me. They let me do anything I wanted. They did not stop me from ..."

I may get tarred and feathered for saying this, but we need to back off the anti-spanking crusade. When the children were dragged away from a family in Ontario a couple of years ago, forcibly carried off by police against their will, kicking and screaming and fighting to get back to their parents, it was obvious that the police and social workers were causing those children far more trauma than all of the spankings those children had ever received. In my opinion the police and social workers should have been charged with child abuse. Certainly anybody else doing what they did would have been.

As a child I was spanked frequently. I didn't like it. It hurt. My mother used a wooden spoon and my father a wide leather belt. But I was never injured or bruised. And I was not bent out of shape by it. When various authorities tell us that children are traumatized, bent out of shape by spankings, my answer is "Liar!" I have no problem with coming down like a mountain on the parent whose child carries bruises or worse injuries from a "spanking". I have no problem with knocking down the parent whose "discipline" of any sort is so frequent, or so unpredictable that his children walk in terror all the time. But if we are to have effective families, the "ban discipline" outlook has got to go.

I'll stop there. I've no doubt given fuel for some to scream "Blue Murder" already. So I won't add more fuel to the fire.

[August1991]

DAC, I disagree with many of your individual points and at first thought I would go through your post point-by-point but instead, I'll try a different tack.

In Quebec, the government in the past few decades has gotten involved in what might be called "social engineering" or an attempt to "improve" people through social policy. The State has somehow taken over the role of the Catholic Church.

[in North America and Europe in general, the atrocities of WWII lead to a desire to "improve society" and a belief in the "perfectibility of man".]

For example, in Quebec, a woman is not allowed to assume her husband's name at marriage. The purpose is to ensure that the woman remains an independant individual in her own right.

I mention all this because the results of these social engineering experiments have been mixed. I frankly think they will ultimately fail unless people decide they like the changes.

So, DAC, your long post suggests too often that the State should intervene to somehow change people. It's another form of social engineering. I don't think it will work but alot of effort will be wasted.

Where moral questions are concerned, it is best for the State to be pragmatic.

For example, most moral questions in Canada are left to local jurisdictions (eg. drinking age, youth offenders). This means some places allow certain activities and other places forbid them. This is as it should be and is pragmatic.

-----

To get back to your thread, marriage means little anymore, nor should it, unless children are involved. In fact, the modern definition of marriage is having children, whether the parents are married or not.

The issue seems to be what is the best way to ensure children grow up in a good environment? This is hardly a new problem. It is at the root of our existence as a species, or indeed any species.

[Michael Hardner]

We outlaw child porn because there is a clear statistical connection between it and child abuse. The statistical connection does not prove a cause-effect relationship, and it is almost certain that some who indulge in child porn do not go on to abuse children. But the connection is clear, whatever the actual cause, and because the consequences are extremely bad, we make all child porn use a crime.

No that is not why we outlaw child porn. We outlaw it because filming it is a crime, and because it is generally disgusting.

There is a statistical correlation between homosexual behaviour and family problems. Nobody seems to deny that. That is sufficient for us to say at least that we don't want to encourage homosexual families.

No, it is not.

You are also confusing correlation and causation.

Personally, I would say that until the homosexual movement gets together and makes very plain that groups such as NAMBLA have no place in their movement - that means excluding them from gay pride parades, for example - we should decline to allow homosexuals to adopt children. But at least there are grounds not to encourage formation of homosexual families.

There are no such grounds shown here yet.

A loving homosexual couple may well be as fit to parent as a loving heterosexual couple. There's no statistical way to say they're not.

And I think that common sense should tell us that either couple is fit to be parents.

[Michael Hardner]

The first step towards strengthening traditional families is to structure our taxes and our social services to make "family" beneficial. Change the tax code so that two people who are married, whether they are on a single income or a double income, can automatically share their income(s) for tax purposes and file separate returns. Structure social services so that single mothers do not lose benefits if they marry, unless the man they marry has sufficient income that they are clearly better off in marriage. Doing those things takes away economic incentives for avoiding marriage. It encourages two parent families.

This kind of attitude is exactly the problem.

You can't pay people to be better parents.

It's not lack of money, it's lack of spirituality.

[August1991]

Thank you Michael for making the same individual points I would have made.

This kind of attitude is exactly the problem.

You can't pay people to be better parents.

It's not lack of money, it's lack of spirituality.

Here though I'll disagree with you. Child poverty is much less of a problem in Canada than it once was but it still exists in the world. Putting a few dollars in a poor child's pocket makes a difference.

Late me be plain, around the world, the best child policy would be a parent in a job with a good wage.

[Michael Hardner]

Here though I'll disagree with you. Child poverty is much less of a problem in Canada than it once was but it still exists in the world. Putting a few dollars in a poor child's pocket makes a difference.

Late me be plain, around the world, the best child policy would be a parent in a job with a good wage.

I agree... but I also think that people spent too much money, and that they sometimes take extra jobs to buy things that no family needs.

[CanadianPatriot]

Yes, I have to agree that money does make a difference in a childs life, however money in itself is not the solution. Rich families also have big family problems.

I have to agree with Michael:

You can't pay people to be better parents.  Its not a lack of money, its a lack of spirituality.

We need to encourage traditional families. OUr children need good role models. They need a mom and a dad. Pyschologists from around the world would agree.

[Digby]

Im telling you the answer to whats wrong is in Hosea 4

Maybe you don't agree that hosea 4 is a message to us . But you can not denie its talking about the times we live in ,as i am a comercial fisherman and hosea 4 says even the fishes of the sea shall be taken also . Never in the history of this earth have the Fishes of the sea been taken but at this time they are in hard shape and shortly i fear they will be in too hard a shape to fish . So its a message to our generation .

The Spirit of whoreing have caused them to Err , take notice how the spirit of whoreing affects us , Spirit of Whoreing means Anti Christ Spirits .

Harlots are False Churches .

According to this scripture we have churches teaching people to forget Gods Laws ,or wisdom and so soon he will forget our children .

I know some of you don't want to hear this stuff , but the bible does say cry aloud and spare not .