Is Relativism Imploding Our Society

[TOME]

Although I was able to add a couple of post earlier in this conversation, I haven’t had the time to participate as much as I had hope, however, I haven’t stopped thinking and reading up on this topic. Still, the more I think about the question, we are discussing, the more I realize I cannot add anything more substantial that what has already be said and written about this crisis of culture we face today than what has been written and said by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. So, as I continue I will be borrowing (stealing might be a more accurate description) from these two great philosophiers and theologians and in a special way from Pope Benedict XVI’s “Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures” (Ignatius Press).

Upon further reflection, I do not think “Relativism” is imploding our society, rather, “Relativism” is a symptom of a much deeper problem.

Pope Benedict XVI points out in his work “Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures” that European society, and by extention I see American society as well, is suffering from the reality that our technologicial abilities and possibilities are advancing far faster than it seems our “moral energy”, as Pope Benedict calls it, have matched. What more, our moral systems have taken on a nuture or foundation never before experienced by mankind at anytime or in any culture until now. Western society has accepted as its moral foundation or starting point, that is the principles upon which its morality is based, on technology itself.

Under the guise of “Pure Reason” evolved from the “Age of the Enlightenment” present day moral systems that dominate our society have as their foundations scientific rationality that in effect is a purely functional rationality.

However, turning to scientific reason as the basis of morality Western Society has, as never before, made God (or gods or any type of diety) irrevelant in public life and the moral consciousness of its societies. Even during the “Age of the Enlightenment” (17th and 18th centuries) those who could not prove, rationally or through scientificily, the existance of God still acted as if God existed (think about Kant’s understanding of God). Today, however, our society seems not only unable to develope a rational explanation for God’s existance but rejects any such notion or worst (and personally I think this is the prevelant thought) just doesn’t care if God exist so we push God out of the picture all together.

If God doesn’t exist, or at least or moral systems act as if God doesn’t exist, and science or technology becomes the foundational principles guiding our moral systems can this lead to anything but a relativistic moral system(s) to guide society?

I do believe that this is what is occuring in our culture and I also believe it is more firmly rooted that we may imagine. Our Holy Father and our late Holy Father John Paul II have written extensively how “Relativism” has permeated our society and I am sure there are many here who can articulate far better than I examples of the negative affects society’s marginalization of God has had on our everyday life, however, perhaps it has had a greater effect than we imagine. I give for example the case where I have found in these forums and others like this a particular attitude on some hot topics when I found interesting to say the least. I have already mention a work of Pope Benedict, now I would like to mention Pope John Paul II’s encyclical letter “Evangelium Vitae”. In his letter Pope John Paul II writes about the negative affects of relativism on todays society and how the rejection of God in the public consciousness has lead to the predominance of relativism (I may be combining “Evangelium Vitae” and “Fides et Ratio” and perhaps other works as well) and the “Culture of Death” that permeates or Western Societies. Pope John Paul II called each one of us to live our lives and even to change our ways of thinking to counter this Culture of Death. Yet, in discussion on the “Death Penalty” it seems many “Orthodox” catholics hold to the concept that a type of well ordered society is more important than the dignity and sacredness of human life, and the consequence and utility of a “well ordered” society justifies one remaining at a certain moral level and failing to respond to a call, our Holy Father, to a higher level of morality than what is allowed. This also touches on the point both Benedict and John Paul II have written about how the rejection of God has lead to a false understanding of “Freedom” failing in the end to understand the meaning of true freedom, that is the freedom to do as we ought as demanded by Christ Gospel message.

So, again, it is not relativism that is causing our society to implode, it is societiy’s rejection of God. But then again isn’t this the jist of what sin really is as taught to us in the story in Genesis 3?

 

[peregrinus_WA]

So, again, it is not relativism that is causing our society to implode, it is societiy’s rejection of God. But then again isn’t this the jist of what sin really is as taught to us in the story in Genesis 3?

But that is one of the main tenets of Relativism. Since there is no one truth, God is irrelevant.

 

[KingAlfred]

While I don’t deny in any way Catholic contributions to the survival of much of learning during the Middle ages, equal contributions and moreoever outright advances were made by both Jewish and Muslim scholars. We owe a huge thanks to Muslim contributions to mathemathics for instance.

Indeed, and in the rescue of documents responsible for the survival of Greek Classic philosophy, which became the ‘backbone’, if you will, of Scholasticism, the official theology of the Catholic Church. My point is much bigger than that, however. Western Christian Man fought for over a millennium precisely to remain Christian, in the face of the downfall of Civilization, and the continual onslaught of barbarian invasions. Meanwhile, the Church was actively rebuilding Europe in every sense.

Please google ‘Christopher Dawson’ and quickly glance over the highlights of his work before going any further. I’d appreciate it. This guy was the greatest historian who ever lived, IMO.

 

[Verisimilitude]

One can cite innumerable instances where life is still horrifying as anyone can tell you. Darfur, Myanmar, etc. That is not the point. The question is overall. And I would still maintain that overall, human society treats its citizens better and with more love and care than anytime in the past. That it is still woefully short of the mark is obvious, but does not remove the point made.

I think it is the point. With respect to how one human treats another, overall, it is basically the same whether we are talking 2000 years ago in Jerusalem or 20 minutes ago in Darfur.

I’m unable to see your point other than you simply said the same thing I did in a different way. The term is highly overused here and on any relligious forum as a means of avoiding really saying anything. You just have to slap the speaker as being engaged in relativism and you are off the hook. I don’t thnk so.

I am not suggesting relativism is any more or less prevelant today than yesterday. I suggest it is a constant and depending on the POV of the speaker and reader would make one on or off the hook.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Indeed, and in the rescue of documents responsible for the survival of Greek Classic philosophy, which became the ‘backbone’, if you will, of Scholasticism, the official theology of the Catholic Church. My point is much bigger than that, however. Western Christian Man fought for over a millennium precisely to remain Christian, in the face of the downfall of Civilization, and the continual onslaught of barbarian invasions. Meanwhile, the Church was actively rebuilding Europe in every sense.

Please google ‘Christopher Dawson’ and quickly glance over the highlights of his work before going any further. I’d appreciate it. This guy was the greatest historian who ever lived, IMO.

I certainly will, but I have read a good deal on the period and know that all faiths had a great deal to do with preserving civlization. To try to paint one as THE undoubted best is simply divisive and unnecessary. We can hardly afford at this time in history to try to claim some exclusivity in civilization molding. The strutting of the West has been invaluable in causing so much of our present turmoil as other religions and nations rightly feel they too have had important contributions.

I would be extraordinarily leery of anyone who claimed that any particular religion or culture was the major force in civilization. First it’s not true, and second, it smacks of apologetics. The truth is always a better force in the world than empassioned partisanship.

 

[KingAlfred]

“I certainly will, but I have read a good deal on the period and know that all faiths had a great deal to do with preserving civlization.”

I’m not talking about generic ‘civilization’. I’m talking about WESTERN CIVILIZATION, AKA: the greatest civilization of all time.

“To try to paint one as THE undoubted best is simply divisive and unnecessary.”

I disagree. Western Civilization to me IS ‘the’ undoubted best, and precisely because it was not too long ago founded on Christianity.

“We can hardly afford at this time in history to try to claim some exclusivity in civilization molding.”

This is precisely when we must do so. Our civilization is unravelling.

“The strutting of the West has been invaluable in causing so much of our present turmoil as other religions and nations rightly feel they too have had important contributions.”

I couldn’t disagree more. Western Man was the first to unite the world, and his standard became that which the rest of the world measures itself against.

“I would be extraordinarily leery of anyone who claimed that any particular religion or culture was the major force in civilization.”

So, you’re a historical relativist? Honestly, have you ever seriously studied history? To me, it tells a very different story.

“First it’s not true, and second, it smacks of apologetics.”

It’s true and needs to be defended.

“The truth is always a better force in the world than empassioned partisanship.”

Your relativism is exactly that – relativism, and nothing more. Also, because you think so little of the civilization built by Catholicism, I wonder how you feel about the latter.

 

[TOME]

Peregrinus, as Pope Benedict pointed out, what we are experiencing today is unique in Western society’s rejection of God or holding the concept of God (or any type of diety) as irrelevant. Modern moral systems do not necessarily deny “truth” rather it defines truth through science and technology. Modern moral systems in denying the existence of God have denied the possibility of existance other than what can be measured. The good of society is thus measured by accidental standards base on what a particulr society or state determines to be the “Good” base on what it preceives to work best for that society or state at that particular period.

I don’t think I would be saying anything radical or extraordinary if I was to say that all societies at all times have had to some degree or another their moral systems based to some extent on the relativistic principles identified as being utlitarian or proportional and mankind has more often than not has used as a criterian for judging the morality of its actions the results obtained from its actions (for example, America’s use of atomic weapons during World War II). However, until the past 30 years or so, even though
a certain amount of relativism had had its affects on society’s moral judgements there has always been present the moral consciousness innate with the belief of God or some sort of diety of relatity that existed beyond the physical relm (metaphysical existence).

That is the difference, in my opinion, and why I say its the denial of God’s existence and not relativism, per se, that is impolding society.

 

[TOME]

I have been reading the exchanges in this threat concerning the merits or demerits of Western Civilization of the world’s condition today. That is why the world is the way it is and what Europe and America had to do with this.

In regards to the nature of this forum I would like to change the perspective a little. First, and I am most likely projecting my own prejudice here, it seems to me we may be making the age old mistake of equating Western Civilization (i.e. European/American culture) with Christianity. And so when we say Western society saved civilization we are in effect saying Christianity, as practiced in Europen civilization, saved mankind.

I think one would be correct in saying this except for a couple of things. First, as our Holy Father points out time and again, Christianity is not a European religion. Christianity cannot be bond to anyone culture, time or place.

European culture, however, has provided Christianity metrix and the philosophical categories unlike any other civilization from which Christian thought and self awareness could develope. Also, and I would be interested in reading other people’s opinion on this, but it seems that in no other civilization could be found the explores’ mentality as is found in the European/American make-up, at least not to the degree that was and is found in the West.
In Christianity’s development there has been the two great traditions of the Greek speaking East and the Latin speaking West. But when one studies the history of the Church, it has been the West which has shown by far the ability and desire to continue to go out and expand the horizon of Christianity through its missionary activity. I think this is greatly do to the European desire to explore and settle new areas as well. So it was also within the metrix of the european mentality for exploration that allowed Christianity the ability to carry on Christ mandate to make disciple of all nations.

Perhaps our conversation should turn to the questions of the influence of Christianity on Western Civilization’s development during its great periods of growth which included the renaissance during the reign of Charlesmange, The Renaissance of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, the “Age of Enlightenment” the “Industrial Revolution” of the 18th and 19th centuriesand the “Technological and Communication” revolution of the 20th century into the present. Also, perhaps our discussion could turn to the question, “Could the rejection of the institution of Salvery, throughout the world have been started by any other culture than Western Civilization and what role did Christianity as practiced in the West have with this development?”

But to tie the above with the OP maybe we should ask again is “Relativism” or at least the rejection of God in the West, causing our society to implode?

 

[KingAlfred]

“Christianity cannot be bond to anyone culture, time or place.”

You’re right – it can’t. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Catholicism singularly and deliberately rebuilt Western Europe, in the long shadow of its Roman heritage, between AD 476 and the end of the AD 900s. That fact cannot be denied. The society the Church established during that long period of intense, continual warfare and evangelization gave rise to modern Europe. During those 500 years, Western Man fought off babarians of many different kinds, specifically to defend and preserve his Catholic and European identity. He fought for Christ and for his nation, under the stewardship of the Catholic Church. Early Medieval Europe, AKA: Christendom, was the consummate Christian-warrior society. We shouldn’t deny that part of our heritage. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. To the contrary, it should be a source of great pride, however politically incorrect that kind of pride might be today. :knight1:

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“I certainly will, but I have read a good deal on the period and know that all faiths had a great deal to do with preserving civlization.”

I’m not talking about generic ‘civilization’. I’m talking about WESTERN CIVILIZATION, AKA: the greatest civilization of all time.

I think that is your subjective opinion.

"

To try to paint one as THE undoubted best is simply divisive and unnecessary."

I disagree. Western Civilization to me IS ‘the’ undoubted best, and precisely because it was not too long ago founded on Christianity

.

Actually I was speaking of religions and not other civilizations. I’m not sure that you can make the leap that Western civilization began with Christianity. It’s roots are much older, and frankly that must be considered. Dawson is a conservative traditionalist. In that may reside the reasons for your opinions.

“We can hardly afford at this time in history to try to claim some exclusivity in civilization molding.”

This is precisely when we must do so. Our civilization is unravelling.

You have no proof of that. You may believe it to be true, but it appears that your belief stems from looking at history from a very particularized way of viewing things. Catholic historians are just that, reflecting the time from A point of view.

“The strutting of the West has been invaluable in causing so much of our present turmoil as other religions and nations rightly feel they too have had important contributions.”

I couldn’t disagree more. Western Man was the first to unite the world, and his standard became that which the rest of the world measures itself against.

You ignore other parts of the world you see, most of which thought of themselves as quite civilized. Civilizations result more from climate and resources than they do idiology.

“I would be extraordinarily leery of anyone who claimed that any particular religion or culture was the major force in civilization.”

So, you’re a historical relativist? Honestly, have you ever seriously studied history? To me, it tells a very different story.

No you would be the historical relativist by your own admission regarding Christopher Dawson. He was a fine historian from all I can uncover, but he did have a very distinct point of view that was in line with his religious beliefs. That should be a warning sign to you from the beginning.

“First it’s not true, and second, it smacks of apologetics.”

It’s true and needs to be defended.

Whenever anyone states that something is true because they say it is, we have crossed over into the realm of lack of independent thinking and non-objectiviity. It is fine to have a position, and fine to defend it, but one must admit that it is opinion and not fact before anyone will listen.

“The truth is always a better force in the world than empassioned partisanship.”

Your relativism is exactly that – relativism, and nothing more. Also, because you think so little of the civilization built by Catholicism, I wonder how you feel about the latter.

It’s a fine turn of events when truth becomes relativism. It is not truth then is it. As was stated by Madison–that which cannot stand up in the market place of ideas is unworthy to supported by the government. Truth stands up to all comers. There is nothing relativistic about it. But relativism is a word to sling when you have no other argument. I well understand that.

Catholicism does fine without having to take responsibility for all of Western civilization. It has a distinct and important part to play. That it was not exclusive is hardly a condemnation.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“Christianity cannot be bond to anyone culture, time or place.”

You’re right – it can’t. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Catholicism singularly and deliberately rebuilt Western Europe, in the long shadow of its Roman heritage, between AD 476 and the end of the AD 900s. That fact cannot be denied. The society the Church established during that long period of intense, continual warfare and evangelization gave rise to modern Europe. During those 500 years, Western Man fought off babarians of many different kinds, specifically to defend and preserve his Catholic and European identity. He fought for Christ and for his nation, under the stewardship of the Catholic Church. Early Medieval Europe, AKA: Christendom, was the consummate Christian-warrior society. We shouldn’t deny that part of our heritage. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. To the contrary, it should be a source of great pride, however politically incorrect that kind of pride might be today. :knight1:

By and large the Crusades, if that is what you are partially alluding to, cannot be held to be one of the Church’s finest hours.

 

[Ruthie]

SpiritMeadow wrote:
Whenever anyone states that something is true because they say it is, we have crossed over into the realm of lack of independent thinking and non-objectiviity. It is fine to have a position, and fine to defend it, but one must admit that it is opinion and not fact before anyone will listen.

Whenever anyone decides that truth is only personal opinion, they have descended into relativism.

A little tough love from Ruthie

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow wrote:
Whenever anyone states that something is true because they say it is, we have crossed over into the realm of lack of independent thinking and non-objectiviity. It is fine to have a position, and fine to defend it, but one must admit that it is opinion and not fact before anyone will listen.

Whenever anyone decides that truth is only personal opinion, they have descended into relativism.

A little tough love from Ruthie

It might be better to read all the posts to get the correct context of the remark before attempting tough love on me dear.

 

[KingAlfred]

“I’m not sure that you can make the leap that Western civilization began with Christianity. It’s roots are much older, and frankly that must be considered. Dawson is a conservative traditionalist. In that may reside the reasons for your opinions.”

You’re right. The foundational elements of Western Civilization are the Greek Classical tradition, the Roman Empire, and Catholicism. Of the three, the most important was Catholicism, because it saved Western Europe during the Middle Ages, and gave Europe its moral culture and belief in revivalistic progress.

“You have no proof of that. You may believe it to be true, but it appears that your belief stems from looking at history from a very particularized way of viewing things. Catholic historians are just that, reflecting the time from A point of view.”

Who isn’t? You? Moreover, if you think Western Europe isn’t in a state of cultural decline, you need an eye exam, ASAP.

“You ignore other parts of the world you see, most of which thought of themselves as quite civilized. Civilizations result more from climate and resources than they do idiology.”

River valleys, or easy access to the sea, to be exact. That wasn’t my point. European Man, beginning in the 1400s, journeyed the entire world, introducing his culture to it, dominating much of it, and over an extended period, convincing it that his standard of living was the norm for human existence. In so doing, he was the first to ‘unify’ the world.

“No you would be the historical relativist by your own admission regarding Christopher Dawson. He was a fine historian from all I can uncover, but he did have a very distinct point of view that was in line with his religious beliefs. That should be a warning sign to you from the beginning.”

Dawson didn’t promote relativism. Not sure what the heck you’re talking about. If anything, he promoted European-Christian nationalism.

“Whenever anyone states that something is true because they say it is, we have crossed over into the realm of lack of independent thinking and non-objectiviity.”

Hello? I’m talking about a time period defined by the Catholic religion. Are you ‘objective’ about your own religion? I don’t think so.

“It is fine to have a position, and fine to defend it, but one must admit that it is opinion and not fact before anyone will listen.”

I don’t think so. Religion, nationalism and patriotism don’t operate that way. And as so ‘anyone listening’, history definitely proves you wrong. Dawson published an entire library and taught at Harvard. I’d say a whole lot of people listened to him.

“It’s a fine turn of events when truth becomes relativism. It is not truth then is it. As was stated by Madison–that which cannot stand up in the market place of ideas is unworthy to supported by the government. Truth stands up to all comers. There is nothing relativistic about it. But relativism is a word to sling when you have no other argument. I well understand that.”

Huh?

“Catholicism does fine without having to take responsibility for all of Western civilization.”

You’re right – you don’t listen. I didn’t say ‘all of it’. I said from AD 476 to the end of the AD 900s. I also said that during that time period, the foundations for modern Europe were most solidly laid. If you refuse to accept the Church’s master achievement of molding Western Europe during the Middle Ages, that’s your problem. The bias you’ve expressed against it so far tells me you possess an agenda of sorts.

“It has a distinct and important part to play. That it was not exclusive is hardly a condemnation.”

No…but you sound like a disciple of Political Correctness, which indicates that beneath the surface, you probably harbor a variety of non-Catholic beliefs.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

“I’m not sure that you can make the leap that Western civilization began with Christianity. It’s roots are much older, and frankly that must be considered. Dawson is a conservative traditionalist. In that may reside the reasons for your opinions.”

You’re right. The foundational elements of Western Civilization are the Greek Classical tradition, the Roman Empire, and Catholicism. Of the three, the most important was Catholicism, because it saved Western Europe during the Middle Ages, and gave Europe its moral culture and belief in revivalistic progress.

“You have no proof of that. You may believe it to be true, but it appears that your belief stems from looking at history from a very particularized way of viewing things. Catholic historians are just that, reflecting the time from A point of view.”

Who isn’t? You? Moreover, if you think Western Europe isn’t in a state of cultural decline, you need an eye exam, ASAP.

“You ignore other parts of the world you see, most of which thought of themselves as quite civilized. Civilizations result more from climate and resources than they do idiology.”

River valleys, or easy access to the sea, to be exact. That wasn’t my point. European Man, beginning in the 1400s, journeyed the entire world, introducing his culture to it, dominating much of it, and over an extended period, convincing it that his standard of living was the norm for human existence. In so doing, he was the first to ‘unify’ the world.

“No you would be the historical relativist by your own admission regarding Christopher Dawson. He was a fine historian from all I can uncover, but he did have a very distinct point of view that was in line with his religious beliefs. That should be a warning sign to you from the beginning.”

Dawson didn’t promote relativism. Not sure what the heck you’re talking about. If anything, he promoted European-Christian nationalism.

“Whenever anyone states that something is true because they say it is, we have crossed over into the realm of lack of independent thinking and non-objectiviity.”

Hello? I’m talking about a time period defined by the Catholic religion. Are you ‘objective’ about your own religion? I don’t think so.

“It is fine to have a position, and fine to defend it, but one must admit that it is opinion and not fact before anyone will listen.”

I don’t think so. Religion, nationalism and patriotism don’t operate that way. And as so ‘anyone listening’, history definitely proves you wrong. Dawson published an entire library and taught at Harvard. I’d say a whole lot of people listened to him.

“It’s a fine turn of events when truth becomes relativism. It is not truth then is it. As was stated by Madison–that which cannot stand up in the market place of ideas is unworthy to supported by the government. Truth stands up to all comers. There is nothing relativistic about it. But relativism is a word to sling when you have no other argument. I well understand that.”

Huh?

“Catholicism does fine without having to take responsibility for all of Western civilization.”

You’re right – you don’t listen. I didn’t say ‘all of it’. I said from AD 476 to the end of the AD 900s. I also said that during that time period, the foundations for modern Europe were most solidly laid. If you refuse to accept the Church’s master achievement of molding Western Europe during the Middle Ages, that’s your problem. The bias you’ve expressed against it so far tells me you possess an agenda of sorts.

“It has a distinct and important part to play. That it was not exclusive is hardly a condemnation.”

No…but you sound like a disciple of Political Correctness, which indicates that beneath the surface, you probably harbor a variety of non-Catholic beliefs.

Please learn to use the quote feature. See the little white box on the second level of icons at the top? I can’t weed through what is my comment and what is yours.

Secondly, I’m not about to answer someone who resorts to ad hominem attacks. i am not in need of an eye examination, you don’t listen, and that I am a disciple of "political correctness. are just a few.If you are unwilling to speak to me with proper respect than we can not speak at all. Your considerations of what I probably harbor underneath as non-Catholic beliefs is just so much resorting to adhominem attack as to be unworthy of response. Accusing someone of harboring some “agenda” because they don’t agree with your vision of Catholic history is also just another cheap shot.

If it pleases you to assume that the Church is the savior of civilization as you define it, enjoy the assumption.

 

[chevalier]

Relativism is madness. Being rational is one thing. Even being a rationalist is one thing. When you mix it with ideological laissez-faire and political correctness, then everything is correct “for you” or “for me” and suddenly there can be no pretence to somewhat objective judgement. I surely don’t like attitudes which do not admit doubt in matters their owners know little about (), but it must have limits. Not everything is relative.

 

[elts1956]

Relativism is madness. Being rational is one thing. Even being a rationalist is one thing. When you mix it with ideological laissez-faire and political correctness, then everything is correct “for you” or “for me” and suddenly there can be no pretence to somewhat objective judgement. I surely don’t like attitudes which do not admit doubt in matters their owners know little about (), but it must have limits. Not everything is relative.

Hello chevalier, I agree. Relativism has been taken even beyond limits to the point each person can decide truth for s/himself subjectively. Objective truths are hard to prove to unbelievers who plant their feet in sand as the ocean rushes by.

As for me, my relativism goes to the GREAT length of which TV show is best.

 

[quaestio]

The OP (and others) may want to download this lecture: Secularism and the Illusion of Neutrality

It addresses several of the issues raised in this thread.

 

[Ruthie]

SpiritMeadow said,

It might be better to read all the posts to get the correct context of the remark before attempting tough love on me dear.

Oh, I did, don’t worry. I stick to my statement. Whenever anyone decides that truth is only personal opinion, they have descended into relativism.

Ruthie

 

[annem]

by chevalier Relativism is madness.

Indeed it is, and relativism is one of the most corrosive elements in our toxic culture. The average ten year old can access more pornography than a Roman emperor could have seen in his lifetime, but good luck getting anyone to try and tone down the pornography. And it’s not just pornography that we share with children, we export it to the whole world. Every day, TV broadcasts more bad words, morally dubious situations, violence, and plain sexuality than I can bear to watch.

Within the lifetime of one person, we have gone from a culture that was more or less wholesome to a culture that is drenched in moral relativism. From being a culture that was mostly in favor of marriage to a culture where illegitimacy is edging toward 40% of all children being born. We know that single parenting causes terrible harm–nearly all those people who end up in prison come from single parent home, plus those from single parent homes have greatly reduced chances of a good education. A huge number of children from single parent homes are abused; I believe seven times more than those in two parent homes. Many suffer emotional damage they will carry through their lives.

But hey, it the choice of the mother to live the way she wants, and hey, if the father doesn’t love the mother, he should move one, right?

It is so terrible and so sad and we so urgently need to return to to a culture which believes in truth, not relativism.

God bless, Annem