Morality of NFP to limit family size

[Xantippe]

And believe me, I think every parent should help a child be debt free. But that is not possible. Not every good Catholic Holy parent will be able to supply that to their children.

**Not every Catholic parent can homeschool or have five kids either, and yet that shouldn’t be an argument for you not to homeschool or have five kids.

I think we can have serious reasons to do something (and not just NFP) without that thing necessarily being mandatory.

Everything is not either mandatory or prohibited.
**

And it is not a failure on their part or the childs part, it just is. I think in your zeal for education (a zeal that I share) and your zeal for financial independance (a zeal I also share) that we can sometimes place an undue emphasis on these issues as graced Americans.

**The authors of Proverbs would have understood both, I suspect.

It’s not just a modern American thing to care about avoiding debt and successfully launching children into adulthood. If anything, I suspect average modern Americans have less concern about both than most people on the planet, not to mention most people that have ever lived on the planet.**

To say that a person, that a parent MUST supply a child with any sort of education beyond spiritual is placing an undue emphasis on what we call education.

**???

If they can supply an education that would supply a child a livelihood and they choose not to, I think that’s very bad.

Think about the past–what would we think of a farmer that didn’t teach a child farming, or a blacksmith who didn’t teach a child blacksmithing, and just turned children out of doors when they turned 18? What would we think of a literate and numerate parent who refused to teach their children to read or figure? Most people who have ever lived would regard that as simply shocking behavior.

If we can’t do what even cats and wolves do with their offspring (teach them to fend for themselves and equip them to raise families of their own), what good are we as parents?
**

You know, Universities, frat parties, football games and such.
With a crushing debt for the majority of people. And even if some parents CAN pay for school for little johnny and Emily (notice I only named two children)

**I’m not talking pieces of paper, I’m talking about providing a child with the means to earn a livelihood. That’s what good parents have always tried to provide their children (at least their male children). There’s nothing particularly modern about doing that. **

Not everyone will be able to do that. Schools have to make money somehow, so affordable debt free education is never a reality to the vast majority of the world. And in this world of vacations, cars, boats, organic baby food, and cloth diaper services, we also add up tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for a college education that to be honest, not everybody needs. I spent over 100,000 dollars on my two degrees.

And since morality is uniform, since God’s law and Will is for all, perhaps we should listen more to those who perhaps get married and have a child in a persecuted land, or a starving situation, these people cannot write a dissertation on Holiness, or how to discern how many children to have, they have no education to do so, but they can teach us how to love and what God’s purpose is of children and family.

**You realize that birthrates in the developing world are dropping rapidly?

People in poor countries are choosing to have fewer and fewer children as more and more of them manage to survive early childhood (a not-unrelated fact).

I have to rush off, otherwise I’d supply stats.**

Bottom line, while I agree with you that every parent should provide the education their children need, I think that it is obviously limited to what they can do, and if I can’t pay for all 5 (so far) of my children to go to some ****** university, I hope that they value their siblings souls and company more than their own debt free ness.

**It would be a bummer if that delayed their own ability to marry and have families and if it limited the number of children that they were able to have, or if it meant that they felt that they had to pass on a promising spouse with large student loans of her own.
**

While financial reasons can be a thing to base discerning another child on, only having a certain number of children so you can pay for their college is well, just plain wrong!

**Why?

Why doesn’t the education of children count as a serious reason?
**

And of course historically you have a different view. The majority of the world, the majority of God’s saints, and the majority of marriages that have brought forth life, have done so in slavery, poverty and illiteracy. From the Jews in Egypt, to current Catholic couples in Iraq that are discerning if they should have another child to replace the one ISIS has just chopped in half. To a persecuted family in the Holocaust.

No, University or “education” is not a sole factor to value a human life at.

Nobody said it was the sole factor.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Nobody said it was the sole factor.

Why is the education of children a serious matter for some to justify not having future or even any children, but not others? Why the moral double standard?

 

[LongingSoul]

Why is the education of children a serious matter for some to justify not having future or even any children, but not others? Why the moral double standard?

Because not everyone is a clone. We get to choose as parents where to steer our children and as they develop, we trust their educators to discern their strengths and guide them to fields they might be suited to. Our children are not our ‘property’. We are meant to nurture their potential for the good of society.

The fact that human beings are urged to ‘discern’ things affirms that we each have a god given purpose and charism as St Paul explains. These charisms lead to great teachers or medical professionals or law and order professionals. Education is one of the highest goods of society and features in the Declaration of Human Rights as a basic human right.

**Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.**

It takes a village to raise a child.

 

[Xantippe]

Why is the education of children a serious matter for some to justify not having future or even any children, but not others? Why the moral double standard?

Who said that the need for education was reason not to have any children?

I suppose that if one knew that the child would be immediately confiscated and taken away (and hence one would not be able to educate one’s children) that that would be a serious reason to not conceive children, but that’s not really where our discussion was.

But basically, what Longing Soul said–this is a case for discernment. We have to look long and hard at what the needs of our children are.

Again, here’s the Humanae Vitae quote:

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

The fact that nowadays even very basic clerical positions ask for a BA might be counted an economic as well as a social condition.

 

[sailor28]

How serious does a reason need to be in order to permanently limit family size? I know the obvious reasons such as possible genetic defects, health risks to the mother etc.

What if a couple finds that 3-4 children (or possibly more) is a reasonable number of kids and decides to invest their emotional resources on them without stretching their resources on any more?

I ask this because I noticed on another thread a poster mentioned a ‘grave’ rather than a ‘just’ reason is necessary to licitly limit family size. Is that true?

Being able to attend to the emotional and spiritual needs of your kids is vital. There is so much that is needed in the early years that form a person for life. Someone can have a lot of money but may not be able to meet their kids basic needs. There is no way to define this. That is why God gave us a conscience and the Holy Spirit. A couple does not need to keep having kids until they have a complete breakdown and are stretched to their absolute limits. I would say that a lack of prudence in family planning could be detrimental. When parents have more kids than they can care for there can be serious problems.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Who said that the need for education was reason not to have any children?

I suppose that if one knew that the child would be immediately confiscated and taken away (and hence one would not be able to educate one’s children) that that would be a serious reason to not conceive children, but that’s not really where our discussion was.

But basically, what Longing Soul said–this is a case for discernment. We have to look long and hard at what the needs of our children are.

Again, here’s the Humanae Vitae quote:

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

The fact that nowadays even very basic clerical positions ask for a BA might be counted an economic as well as a social condition.

I agree that these are important factors and perhaps your tie to the academic field has you making it of upmost importance to your family, but I for one think that while a 4 year degree is not even had by half of the population, that academia has encouraged people to attend school and spend money for degrees they either will not get, do not need or over spend for. In the corporate world less and less attention is being brought to a degree and more and more to a good candidate that can do the job. My wife is a scientist, she is one of the highest paid scientists at her lab, she also does not have a doctorate. She makes more than most of the Doctors. I made marginally more than a non degree accountant. I never, ever would have paid for my education by my job. And with the way universities almost encourage a non commital exploration attitude they are feeding into the business model of “butts in the seats” But don’t you worry, community college for all under Obama is next. Then everyone will have school debt, it will just be a tax…

When my wife was in college, I worked as a grocery clerk. I made about 50 a year. Not bad for beeping bread across a counter. I always thought I was over paid. I made more than teachers…

I didn;t know Longing Soul was part of the discussion. I know better than to go down that road. We have all had our say on the subject haven’t we…

Meanwhile, I think my wife and I will keep our openness to life and encouragement of life throughout this next birth and beyond.

But like someone said I guess some are just called to a special life of patience.

(not that I feel that way, actually to me it was comical,) there is not a parent around who has not felt that patience was at a minimum. The idea that I have more patience than the next soccer mom of 1 in our ABC culture of death is laughable. My life seems to be more relaxing than theirs though…

 

[pianistclare]

I agree that these are important factors and perhaps your tie to the academic field has you making it of upmost importance to your family, but I for one think that while a 4 year degree is not even had by half of the population, that academia has encouraged people to attend school and spend money for degrees they either will not get, do not need or over spend for. In the corporate world less and less attention is being brought to a degree and more and more to a good candidate that can do the job. My wife is a scientist, she is one of the highest paid scientists at her lab, she also does not have a doctorate. She makes more than most of the Doctors. I made marginally more than a non degree accountant. I never, ever would have paid for my education by my job. And with the way universities almost encourage a non commital exploration attitude they are feeding into the business model of “butts in the seats” But don’t you worry, community college for all under Obama is next. Then everyone will have school debt, it will just be a tax…

When my wife was in college, I worked as a grocery clerk. I made about 50 a year. Not bad for beeping bread across a counter. I always thought I was over paid. I made more than teachers…

I too worked as a grocery cashier at a big chain out west…union shop. Worked there for 7 years…worked through college and my first useless degree.
Made about 17 grand part time.
I’ve never heard of anyone making 50 grand in the grocery business, except maybe a store manager. You must live in a very high cost area. Wow.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I too worked as a grocery cashier at a big chain out west…union shop. Worked there for 7 years…worked through college and my first useless degree.
Made about 17 grand part time.
I’ve never heard of anyone making 50 grand in the grocery business, except maybe a store manager. You must live in a very high cost area. Wow.

Seattle in 2001. High cost maybe, but we lived in the suburbs. I hate unions but the union there made sure we were well well paid. Double time on Sundays.

 

[Xantippe]

I agree that these are important factors and perhaps your tie to the academic field has you making it of upmost importance to your family, but I for one think that while a 4 year degree is not even had by half of the population, that academia has encouraged people to attend school and spend money for degrees they either will not get, do not need or over spend for.
**
I look at my kids (the two big ones at least) and I know that they will benefit a lot from college, just as their parents and grandparents did. I expect one of the kids is going to get a doctorate. I’m not saying that I think that’s a good idea, but I think it will happen.

I would not send a child who could not do college work to a 4-year college. **

(not that I feel that way, actually to me it was comical,) there is not a parent around who has not felt that patience was at a minimum. The idea that I have more patience than the next soccer mom of 1 in our ABC culture of death is laughable.
**
Why do you doubt that? Have you had a peek in her medicine cabinet? You might be surprised by what you found.

For one thing, your soccer mom of 1 might desperately want another baby and be spending a small fortune on IVF. **

My life seems to be more relaxing than theirs though…

 

[Xantippe]

Come to think of it, 2001 in Seattle would have been the height of the dot com bubble.

 

[Xantippe]

In 2013, the median US household (not individual) income was just under $52k.

fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/five-years-of-recovery-havent-boosted-the-median-household-income/

“Median household income was lower in 2013 than in 1989 and is 8.7 percent below its 1999 peak.”

So, I would not count on being able to find a $50k job working an entry level job in a grocery store anytime soon.

Locally, I saw an ad at our Aldi’s a couple months ago offering $11 an hour for entry level and $15.50 an hour for the next step up.

 

[LongingSoul]

I didn;t know Longing Soul was part of the discussion.

Well that’s the nature of forums. A thread starts and everyone with an idea joins in as they wake up or get home from work.

I take the NFP (or periodic abstinence) issue seriously because like the lovely pacific Yew tree, once a stalwart shade and timber conifer… hidden within its makeup is a property that can defeat the deadly plague of breast cancer. Taxol. To me, periodic abstinence, once a stalwart for couples in spacing and planning their family makeup… has within it the properties to defeat the deadly plague of modern contraception. To minimise the real properties of NFP is to let the cancer of contraception get into peoples conjugal practices subversively.

 

[Xantippe]

And of course historically you have a different view. The majority of the world, the majority of God’s saints, and the majority of marriages that have brought forth life, have done so in slavery, poverty and illiteracy. From the Jews in Egypt, to current Catholic couples in Iraq that are discerning if they should have another child to replace the one ISIS has just chopped in half. To a persecuted family in the Holocaust.

The current Iraqi total fertility rate is 4 children born per woman per lifetime. That’s twice that of the US, but that number means that there is a fair amount of spacing between births for Iraqi women (assuming around 40 years of fertility, let’s say from age 12 to 52). Moses had one sister and one brother that we know of. Anne Frank’s parents were liberal Jews and had two (2.0) children. Peter van Pels, Anne’s teenage boyfriend in the Annex, seems to have been an only child.

So, I don’t think that it’s correct to say that historically or worldwide, there is a totally different view on marital fertility than we have in the US in 2015. I realize that in the Old Testament that there’s a lot of enthusiasm for having lots of kids as a mark of God’s favor, but I’ll note that that pretty much all of those quotes and verses come from very wealthy people. The Biblical Patriarchs are very, very wealthy people–Abraham and Lot’s herds are so enormous that the two of them have to go their separate ways. I can’t think of a single instance in the Old Testament where a poor person is enthusiastic about having a large family. Furthermore, interestingly, in the New Testament, there’s an almost total absence of the large family enthusiasm that is so typical of the Old Testament. You will not catch Jesus or Paul rhapsodizing about the blessings of large families. My take on that is that 1) in the New Testament there’s a new emphasis on celibacy as the better part and 2) I suspect that the economic conditions had changed considerably between the times of the nomadic Biblical Patriarchs and the early Christians. The early Christians were often both poor and predominantly urban, so their economic conditions were very unlike those of the Patriarchs. For a nomad, your land is whatever that you, your sons, and your servants can defend from all comers, so more is definitely better.

 

[Xantippe]

Not to monopolize the thread, but historically and globally speaking, there’s also a well-developed pattern of infanticide directed against baby girls. It’s mentioned in the Koran (Allah said don’t do it!), it was practiced widely in pre-Communist China, and in Asia generally, abortion directed against baby girls was one of the 20th century’s contributions to this particular form.

I read a rural Indian Christian doctor blogger (jeevankuruvilla.blogspot.com) and on occasion, his medical team has to deal with the aftermath of late home abortions done to get rid of unwanted baby girls. (I’m not going to provide a link for that one–you can thank me later.) In mainstream rural Indian culture, girls represent nothing but a huge financial burden, one which families are eager to rid themselves of.

So, all in all, we can’t say that everywhere and at all times but in the contemporary US, children have been regarded as a blessing.

Apologies for giving a Wikipedia link, but infanticide has been practiced worldwide and throughout history:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

(If I had a more reputable link, I’d give it, but I’m not an infanticide expert, thank goodness.)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The current Iraqi total fertility rate is 4 children born per woman per lifetime. That’s twice that of the US, but that number means that there is a fair amount of spacing between births for Iraqi women (assuming around 40 years of fertility, let’s say from age 12 to 52). Moses had one sister and one brother that we know of. Anne Frank’s parents were liberal Jews and had two (2.0) children. Peter van Pels, Anne’s teenage boyfriend in the Annex, seems to have been an only child.

So, I don’t think that it’s correct to say that historically or worldwide, there is a totally different view on marital fertility than we have in the US in 2015. I realize that in the Old Testament that there’s a lot of enthusiasm for having lots of kids as a mark of God’s favor, but I’ll note that that pretty much all of those quotes and verses come from very wealthy people. The Biblical Patriarchs are very, very wealthy people–Abraham and Lot’s herds are so enormous that the two of them have to go their separate ways. I can’t think of a single instance in the Old Testament where a poor person is enthusiastic about having a large family. Furthermore, interestingly, in the New Testament, there’s an almost total absence of the large family enthusiasm that is so typical of the Old Testament. You will not catch Jesus or Paul rhapsodizing about the blessings of large families. My take on that is that 1) in the New Testament there’s a new emphasis on celibacy as the better part and 2) I suspect that the economic conditions had changed considerably between the times of the nomadic Biblical Patriarchs and the early Christians. The early Christians were often both poor and predominantly urban, so their economic conditions were very unlike those of the Patriarchs. For a nomad, your land is whatever that you, your sons, and your servants can defend from all comers, so more is definitely better.

Ah, written like an academic. Stats tell the whole story huh?

What we are arguing here is if people have chosen (rightfully so) to obey the command to multiply during less than desirable times." The answer is yes, for the vast majority of history and present day.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

In 2013, the median US household (not individual) income was just under $52k.

fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/five-years-of-recovery-havent-boosted-the-median-household-income/

“Median household income was lower in 2013 than in 1989 and is 8.7 percent below its 1999 peak.”

So, I would not count on being able to find a $50k job working an entry level job in a grocery store anytime soon.

Locally, I saw an ad at our Aldi’s a couple months ago offering $11 an hour for entry level and $15.50 an hour for the next step up.

I didn’t say entry level. The way unions work is you have levels, from apprentice to journeyman. When you hit Journeyman you cap out. Now in the grocery industry you get a substantial bump to the next level every 500 hours, or about 3 months for a full time employee. There are several steps but one can conceivably start entry level and then make journeyman within 1-2 years. While your local Wal Mart may not pay that. Many other stores do. Whole Foods pays it’s department heads (aka the produce guy) Very handsomely, as do most major chains. And industry wide it does not matter if you are in a right to work state or under the control of the mafia unions, you are paid more than public servants. No matter the state I have lived in, a journeyman grocery employee (remember, no education needed just show up for about a year…) Has made more than a first year teacher. Heck, more than most police, fire etc. The point is that University education is not a reality or even something that should be strived for for many in this country. I know many, and I mean MANY, people who have spent more on an education that they do not use or cannot pay for. I’m one of them. We tell our children that after high school they should go to college, and we provide them with little or no direction we treat it as if it is “just the next step in growing up” and we give no thought to their talents, their dreams, or their realities. Not only that, but we need to have an unschooled public. If everyone was thoroughly educated we could not afford it, nor would the job market support it. I have a theology degree and a biology degree. Perhaps the theology degree is worth something to me personally but it is not employable. And my biology degree will never be used again past pier reviewing scientific papers… 100,000 is a lot for a glorified catechism class…

BYU has a lot of female students, but in the Mormon faith there is a high percentage of homemakers. The running joke is they major in husbandry. That is a pretty expensive dating service.

My sister (Seattle) has a theater arts degree and a Masters in Teaching. She taught for two years, figured out she hated it, and now is a stay at home mom with a modeling gig that is probably past it’s prime (she is 32 with 1 kid) While her undergrad was paid also with my dad’s inheritance she dropped 60 on her masters herself. She will never use it past those two years. But all because “you should go to school” is the mantra of our society. We don’t tell them for what, and we don’t hold the schools responsible for the secularization and loss of faith the kids inevitably seem to come home for Christmas with. But somehow we think that it is so important that they go to State U! That we put it up there with “serious” reason to think about not even creating a life! About them not even being born!

That is messed up. As our college educated youth would say…

 

[Xantippe]

Ah, written like an academic. Stats tell the whole story huh?

**Well, it does tell you that you can expect the average Iraqi woman to have around 4 children and the average US woman to have about two kids. Stats aren’t the whole story and don’t tell us about every individual, but they’re great for giving us insight into societal norms.

(I’m not an academic, but I’m academic adjacent.)**

What we are arguing here is if people have chosen (rightfully so) to obey the command to multiply during less than desirable times." The answer is yes, for the vast majority of history and present day.

Human beings have continued to have children in good times and bad.

However, it is not the case that the historical norm is for married couples to conceive and raise as many children as biologically possible with no consideration as to how they are going to feed and otherwise provide for those children. Historically, parents have always had an array of options, moral and immoral for limiting their family size to what they feel they can manage: abstinence, unnatural acts (see Genesis 38:9), attempts at contraception (very popular in the ancient world), abortion, infanticide, and selective neglect or underfeeding of less favored children (particularly girls). It simply is not true that it is the historical human cultural norm to conceive and raise as many children as physically possible.

If even wild Australian budgies are capable of timing their mating and egg laying for times when resources are most abundant, why is it unreasonable to think that human beings are wrong to do the same?

“Breeding in the wild generally takes place between June and September in northern Australia and between August and January in the south, although budgerigars are opportunistic breeders and respond to rains when grass seeds become most abundant.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budgerigar

 

[LongingSoul]

Human beings have continued to have children in good times and bad.

However, it is not the case that the historical norm is for married couples to conceive and raise as many children as biologically possible with no consideration as to how they are going to feed and otherwise provide for those children. Historically, parents have always had an array of options, moral and immoral for limiting their family size to what they feel they can manage: abstinence, unnatural acts (see Genesis 38:9), attempts at contraception (very popular in the ancient world), abortion, infanticide, and selective neglect or underfeeding of less favored children (particularly girls). It simply is not true that it is the historical human cultural norm to conceive and raise as many children as physically possible.

If even wild Australian budgies are capable of timing their mating and egg laying for times when resources are most abundant, why is it unreasonable to think that human beings are wrong to do the same?

“Breeding in the wild generally takes place between June and September in northern Australia and between August and January in the south, although budgerigars are opportunistic breeders and respond to rains when grass seeds become most abundant.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budgerigar

Being a wild Australian budgie myself, I can attest to the instinctive natures obedience to natural law in the breeding patterns of living creatures.

Ideological breeding is a classic fundamentalist/socialist philosophy that only leads to tragedy like Chinas one child policy and Ceaușescu’s sudden ideological ban on contraception in the 80’s which led to the Romanian orphan tragedy. (FYI I know contraception is intrinsically evil fbut this example references the ideological imposition of policy on people) There is also the Amish fundamentalist quiverful approach which also represents ideological breeding and has led to increasing degrees of genetic disorders within the wider community which in nature is observed to lead to eventual extinction.

The recent history baby boomers phenomenon across the western world happened naturally which indicates natural instinct attuned to cultural wellbeing.

Hence when we speak of the ‘contraceptive mentality’ as understood by the Church, it is not referring to the size of a family per se… it is talking about the artificial imposition of ideology on natural fertility, which is opposed to the natural order.

 

[Xantippe]

Shouldn’t you be comparing a first year grocery employee to a first year teacher? Apples to apples, oranges to oranges, and all that.

Also, many, many people would be miserable and bored working in a grocery, even at good wages.

The point is that University education is not a reality or even something that should be strived for for many in this country. I know many, and I mean MANY, people who have spent more on an education that they do not use or cannot pay for.

I think that kids that can benefit from going to college ought to go to college, and that those who can’t, shouldn’t.

I’m one of them. We tell our children that after high school they should go to college, and we provide them with little or no direction we treat it as if it is “just the next step in growing up” and we give no thought to their talents, their dreams, or their realities.

**My husband and I have absolutely no intention of doing that with our kids. We are already talking to them about their professional options, and our oldest are 12 and 9. **

Not only that, but we need to have an unschooled public.

I don’t know if we need one, but we certainly have one.

If everyone was thoroughly educated we could not afford it, nor would the job market support it. I have a theology degree and a biology degree. Perhaps the theology degree is worth something to me personally but it is not employable. And my biology degree will never be used again past pier reviewing scientific papers… 100,000 is a lot for a glorified catechism class…

**Were there some living expenses in there, too?

I agree that there should be a reasonable relationship between the value of the education and the cost of the education. But, that’s something for parents to educate their teenage children about.**

BYU has a lot of female students, but in the Mormon faith there is a high percentage of homemakers. The running joke is they major in husbandry. That is a pretty expensive dating service.

**And yet, the marriage prospects of non-college educated women are very, very poor.

“When it comes to matrimony, the United States is two separate countries. There’s college-graduate America, where getting and staying married is still the norm. Then there’s the rest of America, where marriage rates are retreating and divorce is rampant.”

theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/marriage-stages-a-comeback-but-mostly-just-for-college-grads/283682/

College may be very expensive, but these days it is unfortunately the case that if we want our children to marry and to stay married, it’s really hard to do that without college.
**

My sister (Seattle) has a theater arts degree and a Masters in Teaching. She taught for two years, figured out she hated it, and now is a stay at home mom with a modeling gig that is probably past it’s prime (she is 32 with 1 kid) While her undergrad was paid also with my dad’s inheritance she dropped 60 on her masters herself. She will never use it past those two years. But all because “you should go to school” is the mantra of our society. We don’t tell them for what, and we don’t hold the schools responsible for the secularization and loss of faith the kids inevitably seem to come home for Christmas with. But somehow we think that it is so important that they go to State U! That we put it up there with “serious” reason to think about not even creating a life! About them not even being born!

**We have to have a very sharp pencil for doing the figuring on cost and benefits for education (and that is particularly true for post-undergraduate degrees).

However, you can’t really blame college for loss of faith or national secularization, or at least some of the social science suggests that that would be a mistake:

“Sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox said that people with less education have decreased in religiosity in America. Their views on family and work have been associated with this effect.”

“Sociologist Philip Schwadel found that higher levels of education are associated with increased religious participation and religious practice in daily life, but also correlate with greater tolerance for atheists’ public opposition to religion and greater skepticism of “exclusivist religious viewpoints and biblical literalism”.[13]”**

**“Cross-national sociological research by Norris and Inglehart notes a positive correlation between religious attendance among the more educated in the United States.[14]”

“Research in nonreligion in Britain has shown that the positive relationship between education and non-religion has been reversed with generations after 1955, in other words, that the nonreligious populations tend to have less education and that religious populations tend to have higher education, even though religious affiliation has decreased for both. [15]”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education **

That is messed up. As our college educated youth would say…

The way things are today in the US, there is actually a strong connection between higher education, higher income, more religious practice, and more and stronger marriages. Of course, the relationship between those things is complicated, but I would personally not bank on our kids being able to have good marriages without college. Sure, 100 years ago, college (and even high school) was a frill, but we live here and now, and there’s no going back to live in 1915.

Edited to add: apologies for the bad bolding at the top. Can’t figure out how to fix it.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The way things are today in the US, there is actually a strong connection between higher education, higher income, more religious practice, and more and stronger marriages. Of course, the relationship between those things is complicated, but I would personally not bank on our kids being able to have good marriages without college. Sure, 100 years ago, college (and even high school) was a frill, but we live here and now, and there’s no going back to live in 1915.

Edited to add: apologies for the bad bolding at the top. Can’t figure out how to fix it.

That is one of the problems with studies and such. It can lead to false conclusions. And erroneous data. This is especially evident to a scientist.
My parish is over 60 percent Hispanic. Few of them are legal, most are married, most have more children than thier white counterparts, and most are more religious that the white educated people of my town. What is bearing itself out is the failure of our system, and this system that we pay for is killing our children and future children. To sing it’s praises is foolish. And I know that you are biased, I know that you have a specific interest, but I encourage you to be a little more critical of the situation.

An example:

My wife works for a large biotech company, She is on the front lines of GMO research. And there are many many criticisms of her work. Most by well meaning yet completely ignorant organic types who argue ridiculous claims of hormones and autism, etc. But Then there is the other side, the industry side that is so concerned for it’s image and bottom line that it goes so far as to promote GMO as a healthy alternative. Each side has statistics and data. Each side is arguing more on ideology than reality. And then there is us. Completely educated on the matter, highly involved and privy to the most up to date research. And yet, we flinch at the idea of what we are eating. We also flinch at the idea of the “natrualists”

But we do not say, that GMO foods, or natural organic foods are problematic and therefore a serious reason to not eat, or think about not eating.
My point, Xantippe, is that one must be careful not to be too blinded by the cheerleaders so as not to see the game for what it is.