I don’t think it’s off topic. Part of reviving families needs to involve seeking relationships which are oriented to matrimony. Re-envisioning dating and providing guidance on what a more traditional approach might entail is an important component of this project as is helping people find others who desire to build strong families.Did you see The Dating Project? If you’re single, I’m always curious to hear single people’s thoughts on it. https://www.thedatingprojectmovie.com/
Sorry, off topic.
I think that part of the problem is that we are being taught to value things (and people) on a materialist basis-it’s all about enrichment versus imporveishment. Children are discussed in terms of opportunity costs and women are encouraged to consider killing them in order to more easily attend college, increase their waged labor opportunities, or not be tied to potential health issues. Our society seems to be at a stage in which we consider killing others to be a reasonable way of improving our material well being and poverty is presented as a greater crime than murder. This undermines families and encourages parents to turn on their children and on each other over whether to kill or keep their children.Pregnancy should never make women poor. But that very prospect drives far too many women into the welcoming arms of Planned Parenthood.
Pregnancy doesn’t make women poor. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy makes everyone involved poor. The woman who left trying to support herself and a child(ren), the children who grow up poor and then perpetuate the cycle by being men who impregnate women they aren’t married to or women who grow up and become single-mothers, etc, etc. This is not to say that there aren’t married couples who need financial help as well and they should receive it but sometimes the supports in place to help single mothers do more to keep them in poverty than truly help them. We need better social programs that encourage abstinence before marriage, give help but also moral guidance going forward for those who find themselves unmarried parents and supports that encourages and rewards marriage. The welfare system is set up to encourage unmarried co-habitation by giving greater sums of money to single parents than to married parents. We need to find a way to get rid of that marriage penalty.Pregnancy should never make women poor.
That is nothing more than a restatement of my statement.No, to the contrary, racism is better combated when you have strong black, united families who can speak out more effectively. Strong families in general come from holding to higher standards of morality. If one cares about the black community, or any community, education in how to live a moral life leads to better outcomes for everyone. It’s not an either-or solution (ending racism-encouraging morality in the culture). It’s both-and.
First, it’s not a question of inability. Why write an article about reviving the black family if you think there is a lack of ability to do so? We are all able through God’s grace, prayer, time, effort, and education to control our baser passions. Self-mastery and living a moral life is obtainable by all. Being surrounded by others living a moral life is a big help as well. Study after study shows that strong, united families lead to better outcomes.The idea that black people’s problems are caused by their inability to contain their baser passions is not new. The article is just that same argument dressed up in supposedly religious clothing.
It is the theme of the article. He says that what is needed is reviving the black family. He says that must be done by calling them out for wanting to have “fun” and chastising them that their “fun” is harmful to the common good. He ends by saying that what is needed is “moral revival.” So what else could that mean? Black folks need to stop focusing on fun and instead have a moral revival that will revive black families and contribute to the common good. Simplified - black problems are caused by poor morality in black families. Its a pretty clear message.Show me where the article says “black people’s problems are caused by their inability to contain their baser passions.”
“…the breakdown of the family would result in a wide variety of bad things.” We can see this in society. Not just in the black community but in all communities where the family breaks down.He says that what is needed is reviving the black family.
First, he never uses the word fun. That’s your spin on what he was saying.He says that must be done by calling them out for wanting to have “fun” and chastising them that their “fun” is harmful to the common good.
It means that moral choices, that sometimes require self-denial and sacrifice in the present, for a future good leads to stronger families. This applies to all families, everywhereSo what else could that mean?
No. Simplified, many societal problems are caused by poor morality by any person. He writes, " But suppose that racism in the United States is endemic. As the archbishop knows, one crime does not justify another. Bad treatment may lead a man to drink, and the drink may ruin his family. What then? Do we wait till all men are gentle before we tell him he must stop his drinking? He needs the support of the moral law most urgently. Bad people who have money and power can afford their debaucheries for a while. The poor cannot."Simplified - black problems are caused by poor morality in black families. Its a pretty clear message.
No, but it would lead to a better quality of life in general and would give them stronger tools to more effectively fight against it.Even if the black community were to address the problems plaguing their communities and live an upright moral life, it wouldn’t make racism go away.
This is true. But now there is more legislation than there was then that seeks to help and support the black community and yet 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock. Would not the combination of strengthening marriage and family across the board in society plus the legislation we have now compared to then, not disproportionately strengthen the black community?Black intact families were more plentiful in the past and yet you have the Jim Crow laws in the South.
And yet, somehow they thrive better than blacks. "Marriage is very common, and quite strong, in the Asian American community. Eighty-two percent of children under 18 in the U.S. Asian/Pacific Islander population live with both of their parents, higher than the national average of seventy percent. "Asian Americans are likely to finish school and have lower rates of single motherhood yet racism against them is still alive and well.
No one is arguing that it’s not. The argument is that strong, intact families are in a better position to fight against it and to mitigate the harm that comes to them from racists attitudes. Notice the article does not attempt to say that reviving the black family will end racism. It says it will help to better combat it. Do you not agree?It is up to racists to stop their behavior.
But he is talking specifically about the black community.“…the breakdown of the family would result in a wide variety of bad things.” We can see this in society. Not just in the black community but in all communities where the family breaks down.
Nope, fun is his word. A direct quote.First, he never uses the word fun. That’s your spin on what he was saying.
Second, are you saying living a moral life is a life that excludes fun? Are you saying an immoral life is a fun life and justifies that choice?
But he is applying it specifically to black families, in the US, now. That is the whole point of his article.It means that moral choices, that sometimes require self-denial and sacrifice in the present, for a future good leads to stronger families. This applies to all families, everywhere
Yes, he says that black folks need moral law because black people are mired in their own immorality, and that you can tell their problems are not caused by racism because racism is over (because of SATs and also Jackie Robinson, apparently).So his point is, the black community in light of racist attitudes needs the support of the moral law in order to strengthen them while we continue to fight racism.
He says that what is needed is reviving the black family. He says that must be done by calling them out for wanting to have “fun” and chastising them that their “fun” is harmful to the common good.
You’re right. I missed the one time he used the word fun but he doesn’t say it in the same light you implied. He didn’t call them out for wanting to have fun. He’s saying that they can’t just blame racism for all black problems. There is not going to be a revival of strong black families unless there is some personal responsibility taken for reviving them. He’s not incorrect in that statement. He says " It’s a lot easier to blame other people – some of whom may be worthy of blame – or to call upon the mysterious ether of systemic racism than to look in the mirror and say, to the only person whose sins you have the power to check, “You there, what you are doing is fun. Too bad. It harms the common good. It hurts you and your people worst of all. Grow up.”Nope, fun is his word. A direct quote.
Well, yes. This is the dominant topic in our culture recently, is it not? He doesn’t say, though, that it only applies to black families.But he is applying it specifically to black families, in the US, now. That is the whole point of his article.
Is there not a lack of intact families in the black community? Would a stronger sense of morality not strengthen the black family? Why can’t we talk about that? Isn’t it kind of racist to say the black community has no agency or personal responsibility? He does not say “you can tell their problems are not caused by racism.” He argues that racism is not as endemic in the culture as some imply. He cites many examples for his statement. To say that doesn’t mean that there is no racism that needs to be fought.Yes, he says that black folks need moral law because black people are mired in their own immorality, and that you can tell their problems are not caused by racism because racism is over (because of SATs and also Jackie Robinson, apparently).
No, I think this is backwards, actually. You are saying that it would be racist to pretend that lack of morality is not the real problem with black people, but that assumes as a predicate that lack of morality in the black community is the source of the problem. I don’t buy that predicate.Is there not a lack of intact families in the black community? Would a stronger sense of morality not strengthen the black family? Why can’t we talk about that? Isn’t it kind of racist to say the black community has no agency or personal responsibility? He does not say “you can tell their problems are not caused by racism.” He argues that racism is not as endemic in the culture as some imply. He cites many examples for his statement. To say that doesn’t mean that there is no racism that needs to be fought.
If that’s what you think I’m saying then you misunderstand what I’m saying. I said nothing about it being racist to pretend that lack of morality is not the real problem with black people. I said, "No, I think this is backwards, actually. You are saying that it would be racist to pretend that lack of morality is not the real problem with black people, but that assumes as a predicate that lack of morality in the black community is the source of the problem. I
This doesn’t mean that black people don’t have problems stemming from racism. It means they can’t blame racism for all the problems in their community. If they are going to revive the black family, which is a good thing, they have some personal responsibility of their own.He’s saying that they can’t just blame racism for all black problems. There is not going to be a revival of strong black families unless there is some personal responsibility taken for reviving them.
No, it states that lack of morality leads to a breakdown of the family which weakens the black community and makes it more difficult to fight racism and work to eradicate it. It’s not the source of the problem. It exacerbates the problem.…but that assumes as a predicate that lack of morality in the black community is the source of the problem.
Again, the examples he uses are to support his assertion that racism is not endemic in the American culture. Yes, it exists, but the examples show that a vast majority of Americans think nothing of interracial marriages, they hold up many black Americans in honor of their achievements, there are laws in place to give them more support and advantages etc. None of those examples deny that there are people who hold racist beliefs but they do show that it’s not as hard-baked into our systems and institutions as it’s being asserted in the media and culture right now.He doesn’t really explain why he brings affirmative action or Jackie Robinson into his argument, but he seems to be suggesting that racism is over (or something similar). He does denigrate the idea of racism’s existence as a “mysterious ether,” which also suggests he does not believe it exists.
I am referring to your post where you said:If that’s what you think I’m saying then you misunderstand what I’m saying. I said nothing about it being racist to pretend that lack of morality is not the real problem with black people. I said, "
Which suggested to me that you agree with the author that black problems are largely due to their lack of personal responsibility. Perhaps I misunderstood you.Isn’t it kind of racist to say the black community has no agency or personal responsibility?
That is not how I read his statement. But even if you are correct, I assume what you mean is that black irresponsibility is enforcing negative stereotypes of black people, and that is how it exacerbates the problem. If that is what you are saying, I simply disagree. The causality is simply backwards in that formulation.No, it states that lack of morality leads to a breakdown of the family which weakens the black community and makes it more difficult to fight racism and work to eradicate it. It’s not the source of the problem. It exacerbates the problem.
My problem with this is that it is such a common tactic among those that oppose further civil rights advancements. They argue that enough has been done, and that from here forward any problems that black people have must be due to their own shortcomings, or, in the case of this author, their own moral failings. I think that is simply wrong, and just an excuse to avoid doing something about an obvious problem.Again, the examples he uses are to support his assertion that racism is not endemic in the American culture. Yes, it exists, but the examples show that a vast majority of Americans think nothing of interracial marriages, they hold up many black Americans in honor of their achievements, there are laws in place to give them more support and advantages etc. None of those examples deny that there are people who hold racist beliefs but they do show that it’s not as hard-baked into our systems and institutions as it’s being asserted in the media and culture right now.
Isn’t it kind of racist to say the black community has no agency or personal responsibility?
I think you did misread me. I don’t think the author is saying that black problems are largely due to their lack of personal responsibility. I asked that question [about agency] after I asked why we can’t talk about the problem of the lack of intact black families or how a stronger sense of morality would strengthen the black family. I asked that question because you seem to be saying we can’t have that conversation because it means we are blaming black people for all their problems and that racism doesn’t exit. It would only mean that, if that is what is being said. What is being said is that strengthening their families helps them combat the racism that exists. That’s not a false statement.Which suggested to me that you agree with the author that black problems are largely due to their lack of personal responsibility. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
Even if it is a common tactic among those that oppose further civil rights advancements, we have to be careful to discern whether an individual article or idea being presented is actually saying that. If we don’t, then it means we can never talk about how to strengthen black families and marriage because to even insinuate anything about personal responsibility in making that happen gets shut down as racist. That’s not good. This author does not blame all the problems black people have on their own moral failings. He is pointing out that it will take the black community working to strengthen their families in order to see their revival. Moral decisions are made at an individual level. This is true whether there is racism or not. It is true no matter what race we are talking about.My problem with this is that it is such a common tactic among those that oppose further civil rights advancements. They argue that enough has been done, and that from here forward any problems that black people have must be due to their own shortcomings, or, in the case of this author, their own moral failings. I think that is simply wrong, and just an excuse to avoid doing something about an obvious problem.
I don’t have a problem with talking about strengthening families or strengthening morals. I have a problem with singling out black families as if they have a particular problem in that area, or that those problems are the cause of racism.I think you did misread me. I don’t think the author is saying that black problems are largely due to their lack of personal responsibility. I asked that question [about agency] after I asked why we can’t talk about the problem of the lack of intact black families or how a stronger sense of morality would strengthen the black family. I asked that question because you seem to be saying we can’t have that conversation because it means we are blaming black people for all their problems and that racism doesn’t exit. It would only mean that, if that is what is being said. What is being said is that strengthening their families helps them combat the racism that exists. That’s not a false statement.
I am quite certain that is exactly the point of the article. It may not be your point, but I do believe it is his.Even if it is a common tactic among those that oppose further civil rights advancements, we have to be careful to discern whether an individual article or idea being presented is actually saying that.