Of course, what is best for the child includes both the physical and and social environment. The biggest factor in child poverty is divorce/separation of the child's parents. In the 60's sociologists were writing about the death of the black family, because the birth of children out of wedlock had reached more than 20%. Now that rate is 40% for the country as a whole. Again, this gets back to biology, and women not taking the issues related to sex and family as seriously as they once did (men never took it quite as seriously), but that's a topic for another day. It's worth, however, jumping to the last chart and comparing Japan's rate to the US rate. Once again, the Asian cultures tend take every issue in life pretty seriously.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.htm

Since I'm out of time, I only want to add that the cheapest thing that we (including the government) can do is teach new, poor parents that one of the biggest factors related to success is reading to kids, starting early in life. That, along with common constructive play (typical in middle class families), are key to higher IQ and success at all levels later in life. Bloomberg radio podcast covered the issue on Bloombergedu podcast a week ago with a noted scientist who just finished a two-decade study.

@Luke....One of the actions that broke up the nuclear families of the welfare recipients occurred during the Carter Administration. No longer could an unemployed parent, primarily men, remain in the home while the family was receiving AFDC support. It forced the male parent out of the home and aggravated the decline of two parent families within the group. This is a prime example of starting something and then not monitoring the process and the outcome. The scapegoating of the underclass has been going on and we now see the result. Look at the failure of W2, this was and is a penalty program to punish what most of contemporary society sees as an abuse of an entitlement program. It was designed to force welfare recipients into the workforce without meaningful employment available.This is just one example of good intentions gone awry.

I think they just agreed a nuclear family where father works so they're not on welfare and mother cares for the children is the best arrangement for families and society. It must be freaky Friday.

For Brian Dey:

"RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions."

"RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

Proceed with caution.

@Bren....I agree that the situation seems remarkably poignant. The questions are numerous and identifying the questions becomes paramount. But, the question is not the problem, the problem is actually the answer. I will give you an example:

In people that are born outside the US and don't speak English; we know that for them to advance in our society, they must learn English. Therefore, we offer ESL classes to help them advance. Now this was a fairly straight forward example, but let's look at something that is not nearly this simple.

We know that out of wedlock teen pregnancies are problematic and generally entrap many young women into a life of dependency. They usually aren't educated, they have limited employment skills, and they have trouble providing the basic essentials for themselves and their children. The question is how to empower young women and avoid an early unwanted pregnancy that interferes with they full development. We have two issues; 1) How do you deal with those who are already in a dependency state? And, 2) How do you prevent the pregnancy in the first place? Two separate questions requiring two separate answers.

The second question is the more difficult of the two, How to intervene while maintaining the person's freedom and individuality. this education and socialization must begin in the earliest years. Girls and women must understand the difficulties they face by not taking control of their own reproduction.

Lyle:

As a society, are we really encouraging people to learn English? That seems to be one of those issues that the left and right argue about. The left wants to create native language accommodations for those that do not speak English and fight efforts to even standardize on English as our 'official' language. While ESL classes might be available, we aren't doing a lot to motivate non-English speakers to take the initiative and learn English.

If we can't seem to agree on how to address the language issue, how can we ever solve the more difficult challenges as presented in your second example?

@CowDung...ESL is not mandatory, but those immigrants that want to succeed in our society, voluntarily learn the language. I feel that bilingualism should be mandatory in our school systems. We have simply accommodated Latinos for practical matters due to their overwhelming numbers.

Bren

In general, those born outside the US and Europe already have that it takes to succeed. They brought it in their minds and culture. In order to solve the problem, we must make sure that the chronically poor are not the main source of socialization of their own children.

Wherever chronic welfare persists, there is a downward spiral of motivation and skill, resulting in a permanent perpetuation. Take Puerto Rico, for example. The US Census Bureau has concluded that the presence of welfare and other sources of assistance are the biggest cause of unemployment (50% of males do not work). Now things are so bad in that country that people from the Dominican Republic are being allowed in to do the work that the unemployed of Puerto Rico refuse to do.

But things are even more sinister in the United States, where the president is proposing a huge expanded jobs program. As you know, if you listened to the podcast in the link I provided this morning, the jobs programs have been proven without a doubt to worsen the employment prospects of those that participate, especially men. This is not hidden knowledge; the president and his advisers know this. But how can politicians gain favor if they say that a portion of the population has a horrible socialization problem, rather than offer them fake jobs? Apparently they can't

http://www.economist.com/node/6980051

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/acs/paa2010/Collazo_Ryan_Bauman_PAA2010_Paper.pdf

@J.B. Schmidt...One of the outcomes of globalization is that people are gaining an awareness of the "other". Taking an organic systems approach, people are less likely to engage in conflict when the "other" is more like them than different. Also, conflict seriously has a negative impact on economic function. Unlike you, I acknowledge that humans are imperfect, but they're not stupid either and they will not engage in conflicts when they are aware of the negative outcomes. Future conflicts will be over ideological issues. Religion is a prime example and following religious ideology is a driving force for entrenchment and conflict. This is conflict, not for territory, resources or power, but conflicts for the soul. From an enlightened point of view, religious ideology becomes the enemy to peace and progressive movement.

@Lyle
That is rather one sided. I enjoyed how you are able to weave your tolerance in a warm blanket of intolerance. How do you balance this distaste for religion with your Judaism?

When untainted by the progressive humanistic view you espouse, religion is much more tolerant and peaceful then anything man can develop. It is when man feels he is all powerful and capable of perfect enlightenment (ie god-like) that things turn sour. If you agree that humans are imperfect (as I do, to your contrary statement) then enlightenment is impossible because awareness of the 'other' is therefore as a result, imperfect.

Conflicts outside of religion are as unavoidable as conflicts because of religion. You are still assuming that the resulting utopia via enlightenment based on a theory with no proof the outcome is possible.

@J.B. Schmidt....I don't have a distaste for religion, let alone my own Judaism, But, Judaism is not one of the religions you are probably familiar with. Judaism is as much a culture, a family, a community as it is a religion. Think of families that hold many faiths; they may differ in faith and belief, but they're still family.

As far as religions' role in warfare, it is well documented. Christianity proclaims support of peace, fellowship and love; but since its rise to power it has been anything but. If one followed your messiah's message, there wouldn't be wars and the poor would be helped. Religious doctrine and dogma, verses actions, are obviously hypocritical. Ergo, my point that religious ideology are a source of conflict without purpose.

Conflict only became part of the human experience when we became an agrarian civilization. Protecting our resources became paramount.

@Lyle
As I said, a religion of peace until men try to play god's, then it is a free for all. As for the words of Christ, he never promised peace here on earth, rather the exact opposite. His teaching if followed perfectly (as we both agree is impossible) would lead to a peaceful society.

There lies the error in what you appear to be promoting. If you are suggesting that advanced education/enlightenment will lead to peace and an end to social issues; where does the imperfection go? We cannot as an imperfect society create a perfect one. Hence, education and enlightenment is an impossible solution. Instead, it allows men to play god's and creates even greater problems.

To say that conflict did not exist prior to the being of an agrarian society is foolish. Suddenly when we settled down we needed to defend ourselves. Prior to that we didn't have resources such as water, areas with good wildlife or other possessions important to a hunter gatherer lifestyle that other groups wanted. I find that 1) impossible to prove 2) perfectly fitting the theory of a return to a utopian society. Something you have yet to prove as more then a theory.

@J.B. Schmidt...To exercise our human potential is not taking on the role of gods. Are we not to create from the basic resources provided for the use of humanity. By your way of thinking we should still be living in small bands of hunter-gatherers. Part of being human is to exercise our power to create a better world for ourselves and others. In Judaism we have a concept called "Tikkum Olam", which in Hebrew means "repairing the world". We believe that part of the charge from G-d is to figuratively and literally make the world a better place for all humanity.

My understanding of your religion also proscribes making the world a better place. It is not the case of playing any kind of G-d, but to create an environment better for all.

As far as my claims about hunter-gatherers and violence, you need to do some reading and research. Open conflict was too costly to the continued survival of the hunter-gatherer group and was avoided as much as possible. Perhaps it would help if you took some anthropology classes.

Lyle- I'm not sure you have a grasp of two central points to your case. Number one would be Christianity. Judaism and Christianity, as well as the Muslim religion, cannot be categorized as one entity, but as many factions with each entity. Christianity did not start wars, but humans using the name of religion did. Same with Muslims. It is the human intervention that is the problem, not the religion.

Further, the Christian religion does a lot to help the poor. Christian missions are greatly responsible for clean drinking water and teaching agriculture to third world countries. There are many Christian churches in our community that sponsor daily free meals for the poor. They also take clothing donations and monetary donations specifically to help the poor. I remember that Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays were days that I volunteered to deliver holiday meals with all the dressings to inner-city families. But again, I don't believe this to be specific to Christianity.

Just because something is taught in a religion, does not mean all will follow. Jesus taught also that we are not to judge others, lest we be judged. I don't think Jesus would have approved of the Crusades, nor Mohammed would have approved of Al Quaeda and Bin Laden.

@Lyle
'Improve' or 'to make this world a better place' is not accurate. We were placed on this planet to 'work it and take care of it.' There is no ability we have that we can improve this planet, for 2 reasons. 1) God created it perfect and 2) after the fall into sin both we and the planet became imperfect. Therefore, as I have stated, an imperfect being cannot create something that is perfect. Everything we create is imperfect. Don't get me wrong, we have a duty to be good stewards; however, as history has shown every human conceived advancement has come with its own set of problems.

Your statement to the ability of man to improve our planet only bolsters my point that religion when it is infected by a humanistic ideology, believes it has the capability of gods. The capability to create the perfect/utopia. It is a very egocentric idea that assumes we have control over the events in a planet that God created. I think Sandy is a perfect example to man's complete weakness and stands opposed to the ability to improve a broken planet.

However, it is that mindset that separates the progressive from the conservative. It is exhibited in the idea that education to enlightenment is possible. Yet, as often as that has been attempted it has failed.

(cont)

@Lyle (cont)
In a world where education to enlightenment is asserted as the proper ideology it makes every attempt to eliminate the morality associated with religion and replace it with a morality created by man. However, the morality as created by man is completely subjective and at its core incapable of being equally applied.

The Ten Commandments are no cake walk; yet they are established by a perfect being and therefore are at the core are equally applied. God established the morality that determines that rules of society. Man establishes rules that attempts to determine the morality of society. That subtle difference is what is creating the problems within our society. The younger generations fail to see a need to follow the rules of society because they lack the morality needed to accept them. No amount of education of consequences can prevent the actions causing the issues you listed. Every single woman knows the consequences of becoming pregnant; yet, their actions continue because accepting that the consequences are bad requires morality, not just rules and education. The same thing can be said for inner city nuclear families.

It is the progressive ideology that has corrupted religion and that is creating the problems with society. Religion on the other hand requires a higher standard of personal responsibility.

@J.B. Excellent points. I could not have said it better. Crystal clear.

@J.B. Schmidt…You are making some suppositions that I don’t agree with. You state that the creator created the perfect world. On one hand I agree with you, in as much as the world is what it is and we must adapt and live in what it has to offer. On the other hand, as the world changes, by the Almighty’s design, we must adapt to survive. Philosophically, the claims that you make that G-d is all perfect, all omnipotent, omniscient, etc; is flawed with tautologies and absurdities. I will not take the time to point them out, but what was G-d’s purpose in allowing Adam and Eve to sin?
In my reading of the Books of Moses; I find no statement as to a pre-life or post-life existence. Let’s make the following supposition: That G-d exists, but there is nothing after death. If there isn’t a post-life, then shouldn’t we attempt to make the world and our brief time as good as we can make it? This would also mean that it is in our self interest to act morally, be of benefit to ourselves and others, to be good stewards of the earth and to act in a means that would make our genetic survival probable? (continued)

@J.B. Schmidt (continued)...That is not taking upon ourselves the role of gods, but to express our full G-d given potential. Since children are failed creatures from birth, why don’t we just allow children to grow up in a feral state? Why do we work so hard to socialize them and teach them a means for survival?
You are, in a sense, allowing humanity to commit any act, either positive or negative, based on the fact that we are failed beings. We can’t stop war because we are failed, we can’t stop hunger and oppression because we are failed, we can’t end diseases because we are failed, etc. We could carry on stating every human condition and the ultimate excuse for not making things change is because we are failed creatures.
Even if there is an afterlife, doesn’t it make sense to strive to make the human existence better? Doing what we can to make things better shouldn’t inhibit one’s ability to achieve paradise. If anything, it would enhance the possibility to achieve that desired state. I know the standard argument is that entrance is based on faith and not actions; but if you have the faith and perform acts of kindness and healing, does that mean you will be denied your celestial reward? Should we not try to reduce suffering while we are in a carnal state of existence?
(continued)

@J.B. Schmidt (continued)...If I were to make any claim about your religion; you use it to resist change, you use it to rationalize the not taking of positive actions to help others, you use it to judge others, and you use it to elevate yourself above all others.
With your statements concerning morality given to Moses; do you not think that people acted morally prior to that event? Why should I who is a direct member of the covenant people have to live with 613 commandments and you only 10? Does that necessarily mean that I have a higher moral standard than you? Much of the philosophy that I espouse is to be found in the other 603 commandments outside of the 10 that you are aware of.

@Lyle Mr. Scmidt obviously has a solid foundation in which to live his life on. This is to be emulated- certainly not to be ridiculed.

You, on the other hand, seem to cartwheel from one belief to another without any compass in hand. Where you end up no one knows.

Morality, as our Founding Fathers were keenly aware, is the basis for our republic.

"Evil prospers when good men do nothing." William Shakespeare.

lyle- Why must you slam a religion you know nothing about? In Matthew 22:21, Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." He said this in response to the Pharisee's question of should man pay taxes to the Roman empire. There is a theological explanation to your question which states that Government is not reponsible for man's well being, but that is left up to God.

Christian's have a deep faith that Christ is our Savior. But it is not faith alone, nor is it deeds alone. Christ commands us to live our life in accordance to His word. His word not only includes the Ten Commandments, but of examples through Christ's human experience. That is why Christian's have fed and clothed the poor for years, have provided shelter and have provided drinking water in third world countries.

You seem to want to condemn Christian's for all the ills of the world, when it is your people, the chosen ones, that have been at war for centuries. If I wanted to use your logic, I coan actually see through Judaism, you would come to some of your conclusions about social justice. Yaweh gave you Israel, man took it away. While in Exile, God gave it back. While in modern Exile, the governments of Britain, France and the United States, gave you the land again. Kind of used to getting hand outs.

@Lyle
You have taken your own liberties with how the Bible reads. I could question where Enoch went in Genesis or Jacobs dream of heaven or even where the burning chariot took Elijah; however, you will simply address each as figurative. Which I find odd, why this figurative book is the one you chose to follow and not one of countless others that probably require less defense or adaptation?

I won't let my main point be buried in religious questions that distract from the fact that your blog is based on a society that has never, nor could ever exist. You can claim all you want that people will want to do 'x' to save people and the planet; however, that can only exist in an environment where life matters. Without a God, the universe is a random set of events that will die a cold death and our lifespan is a pencil dot on its 20 billion year surface. Understanding this, why would a person spend any amount of time as a steward of the planet or help the poor. In the end it wouldn't matter, everything dies. A person instead will live in a way that is totally self pleasing. If it pleases you to help others, then so be it; that will be a rare personality without a God. You don't see high intellect animals forming societies that live under the morality you are expecting in the animal kingdom and in a Godless world, that should be your point of reference.

(cont)

@Lyle (cont)
Scholars have been envisioning an enlightened world of peace since the beginning of recorded history, why has it not occurred?

I am not advocating a lawless society, I am pointing out that the core of your problem is not the lack of education nor a lack of rules; but a lack of underlying morality. A morality that cannot be created by man, because every man would want his own.

I am resisting change, because the governments that have governed non-religious societies have killed more people then any others. I resist change because many of the societal problems you discuss became out of control problems when the progressives began introducing man-made morality. If you had a choice to continue in your current car or trade it for a 1974 Ford Pinto, not driven, fresh of the factory floor, would you? My guess is no. Does that make you resistant to change? No it makes you intelligent for understanding your options. I understand the options before our country and the liberal ideology is the Ford Pinto of current culture.

@Brian Dey....Thank you for your well thought out response. However, beyond my formal education and my continuous study of my social science disciplines and social philosophy; I have pursued an avocation of studying and teaching religion. I have study comparative religions for better than five decades. I understand the principles of Christianity, the history and evolvement and as an institution, the impact on social structures.

My point to J.B. is that there is a different interpretation and understanding that doesn't jibe with his understanding of his own beliefs. The questions I posed to him were crafted to elicit his response as to the appropriateness of working to ease the worst of the human condition. Jesus, except for one time, never withheld his services to the poor, diseased and mentally ill. He in fact, set the example for his followers. One thing is for certain, if Christianity had fulfilled His teachings, there never would have been a necessity for the government to get involved in providing social services. The proscription for helping the needy has always been in place since the religion emerged in the 4th century C.E.

As far as Israel, you couldn't be more wrong. The conflict today wouldn't exist except that the British promised the same piece of land to two different groups. Israel created herself after the British pullout. Harry Truman was the first head of state to officially recognize the State of Israel. (continued)

@Brian Dey (continued)....Palestine was never empty of Jews and the return began in the late 19th century. The land was purchased from the owners, many of them absentee, and the Zionist settlers began the long process of reclaiming the land, which continues on to the present. When, after independence, the new nation was invaded, it was the Israeli's, without help, who fought off the attackers. Israel has continued to fight its own wars without any foreign troops helping. Therefore, the notion of the United States, Britain and France giving Israel to the Jews is entirely incorrect. Truth be known, Britain attempted to renege on their agreement and blocked immigration of Jews after the close of WWII. The United States has used Israel as a pawn to counter the influence of the former Soviet Union in the region and the U.S. has benefited over the last 62 years, selling arms to the Israelis. The U.S. has been giving Israel $3.0 billion a year in foreign aid for decades, but 2/3 of that came back to the U.S. in the form of arms sales.

Lyle:

Not to distract from the conversation, but I am curious--what was the 'one time' that Jesus withheld his services to the poor/sick?

Going back to your earlier question about the 613 commandments vs. the 10 Commandments, Jesus did make a point once where his healing trumped the 'no work on the Sabbath' law. Perhaps the Christian morality can stand more favorably because Jesus narrowed the commandments given to Moses down to just two by commanding everyone to love G-d, and to love each other.

@Lyle
I have never said an end to all government help of the poor. I am good with helping those that can't truly help themselves. Also, you have no idea what I do as an individual. The apostles in Acts helped each other, not unlike what churches do and did more prior to the advent of the entitlement state. The apostles took care of the poor on an individual basis and never forcibly took from fellow Christians and gave to others, it was a selfless giving by the Christians.

You can't extrapolate what Christ would do to the government level. Christ was speaking to the ways of the individual. While he said support the government, if I can impact that government to keep from giving money to people under your assumption of humanistic morality, then I should. If the government is encouraging living in sin (as you are) and still give them money; then as a Christian shouldn't I be working to correct that.

As for alleviation of all poor, that is ludicrous and not true. As we have defined the world is broken, therefore there would be poor where christians are not. Also, the population of Christians dwarfs total population, it would be impossible to help all poor. Lastly there would be those unwilling to take money from Christians.

You are distracting from the topic by labeling me as either unChristian or heartless. Neither represents the truth,.

@CowDung....Jesus withheld his help at least twice that I recall. One time was healing the daughter of the Greek woman and then when he was overwhelmed by the crowds seeking his help.

Not all the commandments are of equal value. It is of higher value to help the sick or save a life than to observe the sabbath. In fact not helping is considered a greater sin than breaking the sabbath.

Which was exactly the point that Jesus made when he chose to heal on the Sabbath while the Pharasees were looking to condemn him for violating the Law...

As far as the Greek woman's daughter--is that Mark 7:25? From what Google tells me about it, the daughter was eventually healed by Jesus though, wasn't she? Was it an actual refusal, or was it a test of her faith?

@J.B. Schmidt....The only concern for you is for you not to sin. What others do is beyond your mandate as a Christian. Besides, if the government (Caesar) demands money to help the poor, are you not breaking Jesus's proscription to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give unto G-d that which is G-d's. Your idea that to oppose the government is proper for a Christian is questionable.

Lyle- I'm glad you reference your formal training, as I too have had formal training with four years of theology, as well as life experience being baptized and confirmed in both the Lutheran and Catholic church. I was also received into the Episcopal church. An elder in the Catholic church, and Junior and Senior Warden in the Episcopla Church. I had one year in ministry training at Concordia Milwaukee and was a youth minister for 4 years. Enough about my background.

To understand the Matthew 22.22, one must put into context that the coin was representative of earthly wealth and duty, while Jesus, being raised in the Jewish culture, was of the beliefs of Psalm 25, verse 1; "The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." Which obviously leaves nothing for Caesar (the State), and nothing is what Jesus encouraged his disciples to give Caesar.

The Pharisee's clearly wanted a yes or no answer and Jesus was not going to satisfy the dichotomy presented him, but rather used the coin as a demonstration that the coin itself was made by man, and had no use to Him.

Jesus made it clear at the Anointment at Bethany that the poor will always be amongst us, as recorded in the Gospels of Luke, John and Matthew. But the expectation is was not of rich or poor, but the sincesre act of giving of one's self and even amongst the poor, the the poor could help those less fortunate.

cont...

Lyle- cont... But Scripture also teaches us that we should not judge the content of another's heart. To be sure, that is what you are doing to J.B. True Christians do not do good works for reward of eternal life, better they do good works because of the example of Jesus Christ. However, man was born into sin, and can never be perfect, so Christ suffered for us. It is the true belief in Christ that forgives us our sins in the eyes of the Father.

@Lyle
I must take disagreement with you on multiple fronts.

1) "The only concern for you is for you not to sin." Is a grand oversimplification of the great commission as given by Christ. While, yes I should be leading a Christ like life, a life without sin is an impossible feat and is the exact reason humanity needed a savior. More importantly my job on this planet is to a be representative of Christ and continue to spread his message to the best of my ability.

2) I have never advocated for the non-payment of taxes. I believe that taxes must be paid to the extent expected by the government, which is in keeping with God's expectations. However, as the US is a government of the people, we get impart our own idea on how it is run. There is no disrespect to the government or God for me to say that it should be changed.

3) To claim that 'opposition is proper' has also never been my stand. I have at all times accepted the laws of the land. However, God has also given me the ability to vote and expects me to do so in the a way that would please Him the most. While most times there are no candidates that are perfectly in line with what the Bible says, I use my God given judgement to make the best choice and leave the rest in his hands.

4) You have yet to explain how liberal rules will be followed in face of man's failure to create morality.

@Brian Dey....You bring up some good points. However, the first thing that I want to address is the different conception of original sin. Many of us interpret Genesis as an allegory of the specie's evolution to the becoming of an aware human being. Original sin is a metaphor for becoming cognitive and understanding the mechanisms of the world through the power of cause and effect and to communicate through speech. It is also a point where humanity became cognitively aware of our destiny to die. The leaving of the Gan Edan is a further allegory of the species transitioning from a hunter-gatherer society structure to an agrarian society. Also Genesis contains the narrative of the "Big Bang" and the creation of the universe. In short, there is no original sin, only the dichotomy between the animal self and higher self. Now let's move on.

Your interpretation of the Psalm 25, verse 1; "The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." My interpretation is a statement of monotheistic belief in a single creator G-d. It has nothing to do with with temporal laws but only with the spiritual reality. At the time there were two taxes; one was the 2.5% Temple Tax and then there was the Roman tax which did have a set amount they wanted. The Romans hired indigenous people to collect the tax and the tax collector would tax above the rate of the Roman tax and keep the difference. This practice was hated by the Jews. (continued)

@Brian Dey (continued)....If someone was too poor and indigent, then there was nothing to pay the Roman tax and Jesus proscribed poverty. When the rich man approached and asked how he could get into heaven, what was the response; (paraphrased) sell all of you possessions and give the proceeds to the poor and follow me.

to understand the Pharisees, one must understand their role in Jewish society. They were the interpreters of the Laws and also were the religious police. To avoid incriminating himself, Jesus would not give them a direct answer to his claims. The Temple priests (Sadducees) and the Pharisees were in a power struggle, with the Sadducees supporting the Roman occupiers in order to protect their great wealth. At the time a number of people, claiming to be the messiah, were present and the Pharisees were charged with routing them out and challenging their claims.

It is true that the poor will always be with us, but as an aware human being it is our duty to help. Morality and understanding demands that of us.

To claim I am judging J.B.'s heart, intent or worth is a ridiculous claim. I am only challenging his claims of having the only correct morality and judging others by it. He neither understands nor wants to understand the differences in views with regards to moral interpretation.

@J.B. Schmidt....The problem with morality is that it is the rules by which any society governs itself and since a society is made up of humans who adapt morality to meet the needs of society, then morality is not fixed. One can be moral as long as they abide by societies rules of proper behavior. I know many atheists and agnostics who are very moral by any measure. Morality is the out growth of the human condition and reflect the needs of our time. Religious belief is not the only source of moral principles and ethics. If you look at Freud and his interpretation of the personality and self, then there are three levels of self; the Id, the Ego and the Super Ego. Of our concern is the Super Ego represented as inculcated moral rules. Most of the world's moral systems are more similar than different is the rules of proper behavior. Therefore, morality has one purpose and one purpose only, to make a strong, ordered and stable society. Incorporating liberal principles into a moral system has no ill effect as long as those principles promote the moral purpose. So in short, is morality man made; absolutely.

@Lyle Moral ambiguity brings decline. Just ask the Romans.

Lyle- I take it that you are not Orthodox. Just as in Judaism, Christianity has many different sects within the religion itself. For example, the Lutheran church believes in a strict literal interpretation of the Bible, while Catholics believe the Old Testament to be a series of parables connected in history. However, both believe that the New Testament is historical fact.

In itself is its own dichotomy and has resulted in various moral dilemas within the Christian community. That ponders the question if the laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, which many Biblical scholars consider the books on morality, were man's reaction to the times, or God's. If you believe that they were God's, then you would take them much like the Ten Commandments or as literal law, subject to no man made interpretation. So for example, Leviticus 20:13, the passage condemning homosexuality, by many of Christian and Jewish faith, means exactly what it says.

The Episcapol church has accepted man'e interpretation, while the Catholic church has not. That is why gay marriage is a hot issue for some many in the Christian faith. Marriage is one of seven Holy Sacraments, or those being created by or instituted by God. So taking that into consideration, many Christians will never accept that as moral.

An interesting read:

"The Garbage Generation: It is enough that the reader should know that there exists (and can be consulted on pages 000-000) proof that the high-crime, low- achieving areas of society are those with the greatest numbers of families headed by women and that the low-crime, highachieving groups in society are those with stable, patriarchal families--that the feminist/sexual revolution and its attempt to impose a social organization based on female kinship is a failure and that it is necessary to return to a social organization based on male kinship."

http://fatherfigurevideo.com/garbage-generation-by-daniel-amneus.pdf

@Cricket...I basically agree with you, but, if I may, I would like to make one minor correction to your statement. In hunter-gatherer societies, males only provided about 20% of the calories consumed. However, they were important calories since it was animal protein. Women in those societies provided 80% of the calories consumed through their gathering efforts. Males had two primary roles, hunting and security.

@Richard Head....I would propose you do some deeper research and further investigation of the emergence of the matriarchal society.

I would say about 40 percent of whites WANT to be discriminated against, based on their race, because they hate that they were born white. They really believe that it is cool to get discriminated against, beat up and robbed by blacks. These deranged white people believe its an objective righteous story. They remove their own subjective perception from the equation of it all, to embrace the over-arching beauty of the civil rights struggle of these heroes. It is a form of self sacrificing themselves, for what they perceive to be the greater good, the greater good being the advancement of the black race.

Simply untrue...I like to come onto the Patch to cure my boredom and listen to extremely witty people such as yourself.

@J.B. Schmidt...First of all there is nothing wrong with challenging ideas and principles. Much of what "my generation" was challenging was the hypocrisies of my parents and grand parents generation. Without doing it there wouldn't have been any change to civil rights, using war as a foreign policy tool, etc.

The progressive process is to examine, challenge and change that which needs to be changed. The consensus of the majority determines societal acceptable standards. Just as I indicated that the recognition of gay marriage causes no harm to society, the issues of the culture of the underclass does create harm. This requires social intervention to change this dysfunction. We have a responsibility and right to impose such interventions, not punishments, but interventions.

@Michael McClusky....No, we don't change laws for everyone who is unhappy, but we do change laws that create, impose or allow unnecessary social injustice. In the case of gay marriage, it does no harm, but by not allowing it, an unnecessary burden is placed on the LGBT community.

@Lyle And so in your world, all that someone has to do is claim to be a victim of injustice. The State would, of course, be obligated to act in accordance to any such claim. Why can't we all be victims then?

@Lyle
In a society where morality is subjective, how do you determine what is dysfunction? Considering the movement within your generation start with a minority of people who were looked at as if they were dysfunctional, why are you challenging the actions of the inner city?

@J.B. Schmidt I have run across people like Lyle before- he certainly is nothing new. They cannot stand the idea of principles- they believe in the morality of convenience. Whatever is suitable to them at any given time is, of course, the moral answer to the problem. They have no anchor.

Keep to your guns. As long as we have people of principle, then we still have hope.

@J.B. Schmidt Please read this morning's on-line Wall Street Journal article concerning colllege campus censorship. Although the author and investigator is a Democrat, he readily admits that universities are silencing conservative ideas. Now you know what we are up against.

@Michael McClusky...Just because the UK does something doesn't mean that we will or should. Up until the mid 19th century, European Jews were allowed to govern themselves through the application of Jewish law, which is similar to Sharia law in many ways. They were allowed to do this to govern their own communities only as long as it didn't interfere with the greater communities.

@Lyle No, I think we should accept all sorts of foreign laws into our court systems. By golly, it is a global society and we have to accept contradictory morals and customs so that we can know that we are doing the right thing. There are all sorts of man-made morals out there that I am sure can help us out in our daily lives. I mean, there are all sorts of different enlightenments out there that I am sure won't confuse us.

@Michael McClusky...Sorry, but if your not going discuss seriously, I won't participate.

@Lyle Actually my late father was the expert on such matters. He was a Catholic monk for 3 years, then received his bachelor's degrees in both chemistry and biology, and then became a big success in the world of business. He was a religious, scientific and worldly man all wrapped up into one. He told me that you cannot legislate morality. Why not? Because the result would be that an immoral person will simply become more devious in his/her actions. Without a solid foundation to begin with, a person will almost certainly pursue self-interest over society's interests.

There was a recent article which concerned how the West was thwarting freedom of speech in order that no one would be offended Brigitte Bardot, the French actress, has been fined 7 times by the French Government for speaking out against immigration policy. In Canada, a stand-up comic lost a 23,000$ law suit because he made some remarks about lesbians during his act.

Is it moral to have freedom of speech? Is it wise to change morals and laws simply because one faction or another has objections to it? In short, is it possible to attain universal truth without offending someone? I think not.

@Michael
I think that you and I need to come to terms with Lyle's advanced enlightenment that allows a higher level of discernment regarding which societal rules are acceptable for establishing morality. As you pointed out that we should be accepting the rules of global society, to which he blew off as a non-serious discussion. Yet it is his progressive movement that puts in place supreme court judges that look outside the US for guidance on cases. It is his progressive movement that is willing to accept rules created by the UN, a global entity, as rules that should also govern the people of the US. For example, it is our current president that supports the UN gun restrictions and wishes to bring to the US. I can also assure you that it is the progressives that will joyously receive the most recent proclamation that contraceptives are a 'Universal Right'.

The subjective establishment of morality is incompatible with human reason. He has yet to prove where man made morality via the creation of additional rules or regulations has created a better society. Man's imperfection makes that impossible. Unfortunately, the progressives believe that they can get beyond imperfection. That ideology of moving beyond imperfection makes his discussion non-serious.

@Michael McClusky....I agree with your late father, may he rest in peace. You can't legislate morality and the exchange has not been about legislating morality. Legislative laws should be secular only.

I don't view morality and ethics through a lens of religiosity, but through the lens of social function and utility. One of the quests of philosophers has been to understand morality and to date no one has been able to determine moral universality. There isn't a capital 't' Truth. After all my years of study and contemplation, the only universal principle is that all successful societies have a moral structure. To begin the journey of examination, one must address Thomas Hobbe's question of "Why is there order"?

Is freedom of speech a moral principle or is a legislative secular principle? Different people and different societies interpret it differently. I personally support free speech and expression and would not want to live in a society without it. In our society and culture we view such speech as an inalienable human right. To compare what the French do or the Canadians, has no impact on what we do nor should it.

@Lyle
How do you intend to correct the issues you brought up in your blog without legislating certain level of education that you claim will solve the issue? Does that not contradict your statement regarding legislating morality?

Have you ever considered the the reason philosophers have failed to find a moral universality is because it exists outside man's reasoning?

What is your definition of successful society and moral structure?

@Lyle Are not state laws that concern gay marriage borne from the legislative process? Some would consider this a moral issue.
Are not federal health care laws forcing people to pay for others' health care without regard for how one feels about it also a legislative morality?

My point is is that the reality of the situation precludes your notions of the separation of laws and morality.

Furthermore, the actions of our allies does indeed have an overall affect on our society, especially with the worldwide communications that we have. We can easily import the wise and the unwise much more readily now.

Freedom of speech is under assault throughout the Western world because of the worldwide web. There are those who certainly want to curb its practice. I certainly believe it is a moral imperative that we keep this right as strong as possible. Without it, the faith in our own society will decline.

@J.B. Schmidt....I'm sorry for not responding before now. Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill in his book 'On Liberty' concerning the limits of society over the individual; since society has a vested interest in maintaining itself and if an individual's actions are interfering with the function of society, then society has the right to intervene to bring that individual up to minimum standards to where the individual no longer is dysfunctional to the needs of an ordered society. The process of intervention in individuals and groups whose actions are contrary to the needs of the greater good, is completely justified. To begin early education intervention is an effective means to accommodate the overall need of a stable society. This is not a direct moral issue but is an issue of utilitarian functionality.

In your statement: "Have you ever considered the the reason philosophers have failed to find a moral universality is because it exists outside man's reasoning?" Of course I have considered it, but have rejected the notion. What good is any moral imperative if it is unknowable? If I followed this path, then morality would become an abstract notion that is in place without any means to apply it. I reject the notion that we must follow a structure that is simply "do as I say". For a rational being that is irrational.

A successful society is one that facilitates the satisfaction of the needs of its members and is continuous beyond just one generation. (continued)

@J. B. Schmidt (continued),,,,Another characteristic of a successful society is that it able to balance the sovereign individual against the sovereign community. It provides ongoing order, yet is significantly flexible enough to permit adaptation.

A moral structure is a set of principles accepted as a means of promoting and providing a stable and successful society. It is responsive to the history of the society and flexible to allow addressing new conditions as they come up. A moral structure is the framework for deciding ethical behavior and principles. Moral principles must be fathomable and when two or more moral principles are in conflict, a moral structure is in place to determine and process the value and validity of such conflicting principles.

@Lyle. The big problem is you can't legislate morality and ethics. A paradigm shift usually has to start at the grass roots and work it's way upword. Remember, nearly 2000 years ago Plato criticized Athenian Democracy as inevitably corrupted by the ignorance and passions of the masses.

@Michael McClusky....I don't see marriage of any type as a moral issue. It is an issue that is legislated to determine contractual agreements and the recognition of the state to those agreements. On the other hand, I do see it as legislating morality to promote abstinence only sex education. It satisfies a moral value held only by a slim minority and does not benefit the overall society, but may in fact harm it.

There is a social contract in place between the people and the government, whereas the government will provide for the common good. In the case of healthcare, it is addressing a higher good and therefore is acceptable and in compliance with the overriding social contract. This is in agreement with the principle of moral utility where the needs of many outweigh the needs of the individual.

It is certain that the ease of communications is having an affect on overall awareness, but we must still act locally to incorporate any better actions or ideas if they should arise.

Freedom of speech and expression is a value of a successful society. It allows for the progression of addressing problems as they arise. It also helps regulate a society from becoming too erratic and dysfunctional. That is why progressive societies adopt free speech early on and protect it, almost to the exclusion of everything else.

@Neil A Rubble....You won't get any argument from me about the fact that you can't legislate morality. In fact I oppose it. One of the issues that I find fascinating is how easily people confuse moral principles with secular principles.

You are right to quote Plato, but Plato also believed in a structured society with slaves at the bottom and a "Philosopher King" at the top. By his reference to the Philosopher King, he was referring to those that possessed the knowledge to understand. He also stated that no one should seek the job, since it is a dreadful duty. The mob represents social chaos and ultimately results in destruction of any stable society. That is precisely why we have all forms of checks and balances built into our social system. This is why I am always wary of single party control within the government. To protect from tyranny, there must be someone watching for the tyrant and to provide opposition. That is why Wisconsin is not served well under single party control. too much mischief is possible.

@Lyle Just because you don't see gay marriage as a moral issue does not mean that others whole-heartedly disagree with you. That is why there are some states that would never pass such a law. That is why morality is becoming a fleeting concept- it is becoming too fluid to having any validity.
As for health care: Justice Kennedy is the one who openly questioned the idea concerning the relationship between the federal government and the individual. The Feds can certainly tell you not to do something, but can it forcefully compel a person to purchase a commercial product for what it sees as the common good? What else can the federal government compel you to buy? The point is- which moral standard do we go by? Does the federal government have the right to set moral standards, or does the individual set the standard by taking care of his own affairs? Again, moral concepts are being dictated by the state, What happens if it changes its mind 5 years from now?
As for keeping moral codes local: this is no longer possible. There iare good and bad influences affecting us every day that come from afar. This will inevitablly grind away at our nobler ideals. Such is life.

@Michael McClusky....How does gay marriage do any harm?

@Lyle
That is a loaded question. How does anything cause harm? Is it not true that in a society that has determined its own morals, the idea of harm is a selfish one based on the individuals desire to live? If my neighbor is a jerk, what is the true harm to society as a whole if I end his life? Society will continue, the world keeps spinning and the universe will go on unchanged tomorrow. Your assertion of morality says that society has desired self preservation and therefore forbid others from following with what they may feel is right.

In the 60's, it is was your generation that turned the culture of their parents on its ear. They believed in a morality that was not in line with that of their elders and rejected it. The baby boomers were able to do this under the assumption that morality was fluid and had not core. Many of your parents generation believed what the boomers were advocating would lead to bad things. Now the inner city is rejecting the even more of what was the morality of your parents generation and the progressives are attempting to say it is wrong. How can you claim any version of morality is wrong? You can claim it impacts society, but to what end? If the society of the inner city deems their lifestyle is right how can you claim, in a world where morality is fluid, that they are wrong?

@Lyle Do we construct new laws for anyone who claims to be unhappy? In essence, must everyone be satisfied with their lot in society, or do we accept the natural state of unequal outcomes?

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, J.B., but there were out of wedlock births in the inner city community and elsewhere long before the Boomers come up with the New Morality. I don't think the New Morality approves the killing of individuals other than in very limited circumstances.

How could the responsible commitment of marriage be bad for society simply because it involves two people of the same gender?

@Randy
I never made a claim it did not exist. However, as we have entered a time when morality is decided by man it has gotten worse because man's morality is subjective.

If marriage was so discriminatory, why not end the recognition of it within the government and make it a purely religious sacrament?

So, J.B., if you can't maintain your monopoly on marriage no one should have it? At least not the legal recognition of partnership with the rights and obligations it confers? What happens between you and your God is between you.

@Randy
That was a question I asked, not a statement. If the act of marriage was discriminatory, then why not ends its recognition by the government? I am not advocating for it, but asking you. It would have ended the discrimination and made it a private matter, right? Like whether or not you play on a softball league for your local tavern.

@J.B. Schmidt -- To answer your question, you know there are social, financial, and legal benefits to living as an officially bonded pair. To make marriage solely a religious sacrament is a hardship on non-religious people who have no church to marry within.

Ironically,. there are some religious denominations that will marry same-sex couples. If your church frowns on such unions, they don't have to perform those ceremonies. Where is your problem with issuing marriage licences to same-sex couples?

@Randy
It is one part of crumbling bond within our society.

Marriage was a union that couples used to show commitment they gave to each other and their family. It was a union that was occasionally flawed by human selfishness; however, its failures were not tolerated by society. This meant that those engaged in marriage took the union seriously. Within the last 50 years much has been done to remove the the stigma of marriage failures and to allow the selfish desires of ones own interests to destroy the commitment it was established to represent. Obviously this led to a culture that included broken families, broken relationships and broken lives. In response many young couples began living together, began 'testing' their partner out or began thinking the answer lie in sowing ones wild oats prior to marriage. This lead to problems of its own (won't discuss here as not to distract from the theme). Each one of those marriage alternatives has weakened the overall need for that commitment. Then we throw in the economic benefits to a marriage we can effectively take the commitment out of some of those relationships as a marriage can be nothing more then shallow sex and money.

Now we have marriage, once a union held with regard within society for ability to create stable families and have reduced it to a piece of paper or an extra slice of money pie. At that point, the original intent of commitment is not only meaningless, but almost irrelevant.

(Cont)

@Randy (Cont)
The consequences bearing out most heavily on the next generation who has a distaste for marriage because society placed a higher value on selfish desires rather than the goal of long term commitment.

As for same sex marriage, I do believe that gay couples experience love, can be committed and raise children; however, since very little remains of the original marriage ideal the addition of non-hetero relationships into the mix only confuses the intent of marriage. It removes the assumption of family out of the original two part marriage equation. I understand that some marriages happen without children; but in comparison that is far more likely that same sex marriages exist without children. Religiously, I don't believe same sex relationships are ok. That being said, if we had not already destroyed the commitment portion of marriage, I would take a 'live and let live' approach to same sex marriage. This is less about homosexuals and more about marriage needing to be valuable to society.

In my original description of marriage I said there were two main principal that society relied on marriage for: commitment and family. As we see, much of that has been destroyed. All this destruction is mainly the result of progressive ideology and the fluid morality Lyle is presenting.

@J.B. Schmidt -- It isn't the gays who have been divorcing like crazy and cheapening the bond of marriage. From my experience, my parents' generation did a lot of that, and they were brought up to believe you had to be married before you could cohabitate. I've also noticed very religious people divorcing all over the place.

Me, I've been married in a civil ceremony since 1979, and I consider that promise just as binding as any religious one. Some people take promises seriously and other don't. So don't lecture me about how society is going to hell because of premarital sex and gays wanting to marry.

What your post said was, basically, you disapprove of homosexuality on religious grounds so you're going to rationalize how it's bad for society as a whole. I disagree. Eliminating civil marriage certainly is not good for society either.

@Randy
Excellent response!

Now we are back to where I was with Lyle. You are stating the my position on marriage is wrong because it is, as you asserted, founded on my own religious beliefs and therefore holds no meaning with regards to the whole of society. Fine. Then please tell me why Lyle can expect to make changes to the inner city? Aren't his idea of what is wrong based on his own beliefs and may not reflect the beliefs of those in the inner city? In fact, every liberal who claims that the inner city community simply requires better education is simply forcing their own way of life on these residents. As a liberal enjoying a morality that fluid, should you be encouraging the inner to city to develop their own culture as they have and establish the morality that best suits them?

PS - This excuse 'it happened before' is lame considering everything has happened before. Which when you extend your argument it means nothing should be prohibited.

@J.B. Schmidt...If you look to the history of marriage, its was created for very pragmatic reasons. Marriage was used to unite and transfer family wealth, assure hereditary rights, and maintain familial duties. I have studied marriage back to Mesopotamia and it was clearly a legal system from the very beginning, some four thousand years. Marriage in its current form is a relatively new social structure. It was only in the last two centuries that people were allowed to marry without consent of their families. Until women received full suffrage, a woman still didn't have the right to marry without permission of the senior male member of her family. Our current form of marriage has accommodated the transformation of the family unit from the extended, mufti-generational to the modern nuclear family. In many European nations you can't be legally married unless you also go through a civil ceremony along with a religious ceremony.

As far as commitment and bonding, that is an entirely different story and extremely complex. It has nothing to do with the social structure. This has more to do with people's psychosocial development and preparation for a long term commitment. Social values, folkways and mores do determine people's understanding of the terms and commitments in long term relationships. Successful long term relationships has more to do with maturity of the participants than any kind of ceremony and legal recognition.

@J.B. Schmidt...I can now see the problem in this discussion. You are confusing morality with folkways and mores. The people who are part of the underclass do share the dominate moral structure. However, what is different is the folkways and mores. The intervention into their folkways and mores is legitimate. Since they basically share the same moral structure, then we aren't imposing an outside morality on them. When their folkways and mores deviate significantly from the norm for the greater society, then intervention is not only permissible but warranted.

@Lyle
Are you saying that the citizens of the US are less mature then citizens of the 50 years ago? They must be since divorce in on the increase and marriage is on the decrease. Then can we grade ones maturity based on their marriage record?

As for folkways and mores, you can only make that claim with the assumption that moral has a constant core. Up till this point you have made the point that it is fluid. Just because one society has accepted that certain actions are wrong, why can't a branch of that society determine it those actions should be considered appropriate. Wouldn't that be how culture with differing views originated? If morality is a product of social cohesion, then within the inner city, they feel their actions are keeping their society together. Which explains why very few inner city leaders ever speak out against those actions. You are expecting them to engage in something they don't want because of your beliefs.

Actually JB, I would almost argue that society is less mature than it was 50 years ago. Those in 'the greatest generation' seemed to all have their stuff together, while today, we seem to have a bunch of whiners and complainers. Back then, people would take the initiative to find work to support themselves, now it seems that everyone would rather have a handout rather than take a crappy job that they deem to be 'beneath' them.

@J.B. Schmidt....How do you know what the leadership is speaking out against? You're making some very wrong assumptions about some very complex issues.

As far as people being more mature 50 years ago, what do you mean by maturity? People have a great more freedom today than they did 50 years ago and as such have more choices. Marriage and divorce is not a good overall measure of the health of a society. There are other measures that function better as indicators. Since we are freer now than before, wouldn't you as a conservative cheer less government intervention in our personal lives?

When it comes to 'maturity' some people can comprehend a morality that comes from within -- I will treat others fairly and kindly in all areas of my life, especially my spouse -- as opposed to one legislated from without -- there are laws against theft and murder and rulesagainst non-marital sex, so i will obey them.

I saw people of the Greatest Generation having a hard time with marital fidelity and marriage commitment once the old rules were relaxed back in the 70s, just as much as we see it today. Maybe we should begin to pay more attention to the larger principle of 'Thou Shalt' rather than the thous shalt nots.

Thanks for the snicker, Bob. Haven't seen that since last time one of yooz guys posted it. What is "wrongest" about it is the 4:35 of my life I can't get back. Thanks for nothing! ;-)

Dude, some of us dressed like that back in the day. And looked damn good while we were at it.

No, you can't.