N
Nimzovik
Guest
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm… Now when was Roe v Wade enacted now? 
- Status
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Oh, about 10 years after the Voting Rights Act and about 5 years after the Supreme Court struck down the last miscegenation laws.Hmmmmmmmmmmmm… Now when was Roe v Wade enacted now?
Keep in mind, too, that while there have been periods when abortion and abortifacients were illegal in the US, there hasn’t been a time when abortion was unavailable. For instance, it has been estimated that licensed physicians performed an estimate 800,000 abortions a year in the 1930s (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#cite_note-6). In our own day, Chile has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, and yet is thought to have among the world’s highest rates of abortion, too…and the highest abortion rate in Latin America.
My point is not that Roe v. Wade was not a moral disaster of a ruling. It was, without question. My point is only that we shouldn’t imagine that the US was pure and innocent before the counterculture of the 1960s came along. That just isn’t true. It was far harder to get an abortion in the 1950s, but it was also far harder on the women who were brave enough to give birth instead of finding an illegal abortion. For instance, 1968 saw the birth of Birthright, which has been a real and non-judgmental godsend for unwed mothers for over 45 years. Some things have gotten worse, but others have gotten better. The fight for what is right goes on…
N
Nimzovik
Guest
Hmmmmmmmmm… and the drug use in America then as opposed to today? No fault divorce? The unisex look of the 60’s? Same sex marriage? Eve Ensler? The ‘Sexual Revolution’?
However,** This** I can agree with you on-
"…The fight for what is right goes on… "
However,** This** I can agree with you on-
"…The fight for what is right goes on… "
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
A lot of spousal abuse and child abuse (including sexual abuse) was able to fly under the radar in the 1950s and earlier, too.
And infidelity was rampant in WWII, so much so that I suspect a permanent change in the form of an omnipresent rooster story-telling culture took root. The kids of the baby-boomers picked up a lot of that, often just from eavesdropping on their dads reminiscing about “what I did during the war” during the (supposedly) morally-staid '50s.
And members of the WWII generation, working from Hollywood and Madison Avenue, played right into that, pitching sex in advertising at those kids as they began to hit adolescence, together with all the talk of them being the “best-cared-for” generation and the most “special” one, scrambling to make money off the biggest age demographic in American history.
H
holyrood
Guest
As one of those people who discovered infidelity and a host of other lies and deceptions, I agree it was hell on earth for me, but one of the reasons I’m also unhappy with his actions finally ending our marriage is that all these actions collectively have a society wide impact. My kids are taking it ‘well,’ but they’re still dealing with it, and for two of them in particular, it affects their teachers and the other kids in the classroom.
This is the problem with all the people who think their actions are nobody’s business.
Sadly, I think ‘Christianity’ became like water to fish. We as a society were so surrounded by it that many people simply didn’t think too hard about their faith and what it really taught. The silver lining to our current era is that I believe people will think more deeply about their faith, and I have hope that we will see a gradual change, such that people who call themselves Christians really do live differently from the rest of society.
I liken it to a cantilever. Each of these individuals sees only their own lives. And just like a room built out on a cantilever does fine for a foot, or a yard, society continues to work when .05% of the population is living with no rules, doing whatever they want. It continues to work beyond that, up to 1%, maybe 5%. But just as the stress increases gradually, as a room is built farther and farther out, so too the stress on society increases bit by bit.
This is what these people are missing. True, they personally might not destroy society by having their ‘homosexual marriage’ or open marriage or doing drugs. But they personally multiplied by twenty-five or fifty million or a hundred million will.
I have a friend who is very kind, generous, treats people well and with respect, etc…but he’s doing many of these things that, multiplied by an entire society doing them, begins to tear down the structure of society, and he doesn’t see that at all.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Honestly, I think the root of the rot in our times was sending so many young men, the future fathers of the Western democracies, off to fight in those hideous, inhuman wars. They came home “heroes”, and there is no doubt that those young fellows were heroic, but you also know those young men had a lot of post-traumatic issues (see friends killed in unspeakable ways and seeing countries ruined and a deeper ugliness than war ever had) and ruined personal morals that nobody wanted to admit or talk about, and the repercussions got transmitted to their families, even if their families didn’t know where that came from. Their children didn’t invent that. They acted it out.
C
colmywaykurtz
Guest
You nailed it!
M
Morwenna
Guest
Much wisdom here. Thank you, holyrood.I liken it to a cantilever. Each of these individuals sees only their own lives. And just like a room built out on a cantilever does fine for a foot, or a yard, society continues to work when .05% of the population is living with no rules, doing whatever they want. It continues to work beyond that, up to 1%, maybe 5%. But just as the stress increases gradually, as a room is built farther and farther out, so too the stress on society increases bit by bit.
This is what these people are missing. True, they personally might not destroy society by having their ‘homosexual marriage’ or open marriage or doing drugs. But they personally multiplied by twenty-five or fifty million or a hundred million will.
I have a friend who is very kind, generous, treats people well and with respect, etc…but he’s doing many of these things that, multiplied by an entire society doing them, begins to tear down the structure of society, and he doesn’t see that at all.
C
Captain_America
Guest
More “****** social life”. . . the neighborhood divorcee’s son is with his dad on Cub Scout nights. . . hence, my son’s best friend is unable to join the pack.
R
RACJ
Guest
Amen, Captain. Liberalism, relativism and permissiveness lead to a sad existence. Depressing really. I’m surely glad that I grew up near Scranton in the 60’s, when dysfunctional families were rare and widely disparaged.
Rob
C
Caroline723
Guest
There is much in the world that is so bad and cause for despair. And I don’t voice this in conversation, but part of me thinks the end of the world must be imminent because we have reached the end - as a society we have traveled as far away from God as possible.
I was a complacent catholic for a long time, going to daily Mass and then the Latin Mass, putting all my energy into parish life and Catholic causes, getting so angry at the bishops and lukewarm catholics. I was so focused on comparing my Catholicism to that of others based on deeds. I was a Pharisee.
People do ******, immoral things. It is worst when children suffer as a result. But history of the Church is filled with saints whose lives began with ****** immoral things (St Paul, anyone?). When we focus on the negative, we are failing in the virtue of hope. Ultimately, suffering in this life is limited to this life, even for the child of divorce. O felix culpa, if that moral failure ultimately leads a person back to God.
I think Pope Francis is such a gift to Catholics, but especially to traditionally-minded Catholics. He challenges us to rise in true compassion, to see the sinner’s perspective when we are sitting in judgment. He has taken a lot of flak, I think, because people mistake his compassion for acceptance. I think that a lot of the pessimism on this forum comes from a place of not wanting to express acceptance. But I take a lesson from Francis, whose lack of concern for how some will interpret his words, seem to imply that the far worse scenario is to be perceived without love and compassion for fellow mankind.
I was a complacent catholic for a long time, going to daily Mass and then the Latin Mass, putting all my energy into parish life and Catholic causes, getting so angry at the bishops and lukewarm catholics. I was so focused on comparing my Catholicism to that of others based on deeds. I was a Pharisee.
People do ******, immoral things. It is worst when children suffer as a result. But history of the Church is filled with saints whose lives began with ****** immoral things (St Paul, anyone?). When we focus on the negative, we are failing in the virtue of hope. Ultimately, suffering in this life is limited to this life, even for the child of divorce. O felix culpa, if that moral failure ultimately leads a person back to God.
I think Pope Francis is such a gift to Catholics, but especially to traditionally-minded Catholics. He challenges us to rise in true compassion, to see the sinner’s perspective when we are sitting in judgment. He has taken a lot of flak, I think, because people mistake his compassion for acceptance. I think that a lot of the pessimism on this forum comes from a place of not wanting to express acceptance. But I take a lesson from Francis, whose lack of concern for how some will interpret his words, seem to imply that the far worse scenario is to be perceived without love and compassion for fellow mankind.
C
Captain_America
Guest
well, this is good.
But I guess I’m wondering if there’s a dynamic here. Worse leads to worse.
Like Orwell’s great example of the man who fails, who takes to drink, then becomes a drunkard and his alcoholism leads to more failure, which leads to more drink, etc.
Sniffing at people’s ethical lapses—social disapprobation—isn’t a very powerful weapon to begin with. And it’s ENORMOUSLY discouraged today, (have you ever heard of a living person called a bastard?) all in the name of “niceness before all else.”
But civic concord is more than toleration of unpleasantness. We need a mutual set of goals and ideals, and a sense of the common good for people and for society.
But I guess I’m wondering if there’s a dynamic here. Worse leads to worse.
Like Orwell’s great example of the man who fails, who takes to drink, then becomes a drunkard and his alcoholism leads to more failure, which leads to more drink, etc.
Sniffing at people’s ethical lapses—social disapprobation—isn’t a very powerful weapon to begin with. And it’s ENORMOUSLY discouraged today, (have you ever heard of a living person called a bastard?) all in the name of “niceness before all else.”
But civic concord is more than toleration of unpleasantness. We need a mutual set of goals and ideals, and a sense of the common good for people and for society.
- Status