Teddy Roosevelt on "a bane to any nation, a curse to society, a menace to the home" -- easy divorce

Teddy Roosevelt, our early 20th century president, was a champion and outspoken on many causes. I just came across his thoughts on easy divorce. He wasn't for it.

According Kairos Journal:

Throughout the nineteenth century, state legislatures greatly expanded the legal grounds of divorce. The result was a catastrophic rise in the divorce rate. In 1880, only one in twenty-one marriages had ended in divorce; by 1916, it was one in nine.

President Theodore Roosevelt loathed the advent of the “easy divorce,” which he warned repeatedly would bring nothing but evil. A century more of history has shown him to have been exactly right.

And then they quote him saying:

I do unqualifiedly condemn easy divorce. . . . It has been shocking to me to hear young girls about to get married calmly speculating on how long it will be before they get divorces.

[E]asy divorce is now as it ever has been, a bane to any nation, a curse to society, a menace to the home, an incitement to married unhappiness and to immorality, an evil thing for men and a still more hideous evil for women.

As they say, there's nothing new under the sun. It's interesting hearing the outspoken Teddy Roosevelt discuss something that's still with us - easy divorce. But it's probably even easier than it was in the early 1900s.

Another reason comprehensive sex ed would be a disaster for Minnesota's public schools -- deadly virus being passed among homosexual men

Another reason for not supporting comprehensive sex education in our Minnesota public schools, which some legislators wanted to mandate for every Minnesota public middle and high school, is the recent news of a deadly bacteria being transmitted among homosexual men who have sex.

According to the Reuters news agency:

A drug-resistant strain of potentially deadly bacteria has moved beyond the borders of U.S. hospitals and is being transmitted among gay men during sex, researchers said on Monday.

They said methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is beginning to appear outside hospitals in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles.

Sexually active gay men in San Francisco are 13 times more likely to be infected than their heterosexual neighbors, the researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

"Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable," said BinhDiep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco who led the study. "That's why we're trying to spread the message of prevention."

According to chemical analyses, bacteria are spreading among the gay communities of San Francisco and Boston, the researchers said.

"We think that it's spread through sexual activity," Diep said.

This superbug can cause life-threatening and disfiguring infections and can often only be treated with expensive, intravenous antibiotics.

It killed about 19,000 Americans in 2005, most of them in hospitals, according to a report published in October in the Journal of the American Medical Association...

Incidence of MRSA is rising along with the resurgence of syphilis, rectal gonorrhea, and new HIV infections partly because of changes in beliefs about the severity of HIV and an increase in risky behaviors, such as illicit drug use and having sex that abrades the skin, Diep's team wrote.

"Your likelihood of contracting each of these diseases increases with the number of sexual partners that you have," Diep said. "The same can probably be said for MRSA."....

Why is this another strike against comprehensive sex education? Because it promotes condoms and acceptance of various sexual behaviors and lifestyles. It mentions very little of abstinence and zero of marriage. More fuel on the fire of sexual promiscuity.

Homosexual sex is inherently unhealthy. This news report is another example.

Liberal former Lutheran bishop Chilstrom wants it both ways

I often get a kick out of members of the "religious left" who attack people on the "religious right" for somehow politicizing and co-opting Christianity. After making such a charge they usually turn around and do the exact same thing they accuse conservative Christians of doing -- asserting that their faith leads them to arrive at certain policies and positions.

An excellent case in point was the recent Star Tribune opinion column by Herbert W. Chilstrom, formerly, very liberal bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America entitled, "What being evangelical means to me" with the subheading "By taking on a political agenda, some have sullied and secularized what once was a revered term." In a rather disjointed piece the bishop takes to task conservative Christians for co-opting and perverting the term "evangelical" for political purposes.

Chilstrom says in part,

So why am I so emphatic in saying that I am not an "Evangelical Christian"? It's because I now find myself living in a culture where some folks who call themselves "Evangelical Christians" are putting a very different twist on that old and revered term. They have sullied and secularized it by tacking on a political agenda. They tend to identify themselves not simply by what they believe, but by the stance they take on controversial issues. The majority of them are anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, anti-gay rights, pro-preemptive war, anti-immigration, pro-home schooling, anti-Palestinian rights, pro-Republican party, anti-Democratic party, pro-literal reading of the Bible, anti-higher taxes, and so on.

As I look over the list of things these "Evangelical Christians" espouse, I find that in some areas I agree with them. In most, I strongly disagree.

He's upset, it seems to me, because his understanding of evangelical is now associated with the a wide variety of policy positions he disagrees with, strongly disagrees with, in most instances. These religious conservatives have "sullied and secularized it by tacking on a political agenda" according to Chilstrom.

Thus while attacking conservative evangelicals for somehow politicizing "evangelicalism", Chilstrom immediately turns around and states that he's on the exact oppose side of most of these issues. (I can guess what they are.) He goes on to say who his favorite president is - a southern Baptist aka Jimmy Carter and states what criteria he'll use for selecting the next president on foreign affairs: "In the presidential contest, does the candidate have the potential to become a respected statesperson in the community of nations? And will this person be likely to seek to resolve international conflict by dialogue and political negotiation, using military force only as a last resort?"

It appears to be a little bit hypocritical when the former bishop does just what he accuses conservative evangelicals of doing -- identifying his view of evangelical with particular political and policy positions.

To top it off he says that his view of evangelical Christian is rooted in reason and by implication the evangelicalism of those pesky conservatives isn't. "So when one applies all of this to our common life in the public square, what is the difference between being an evangelical Christian and an 'Evangelical Christian'? In my opinion, it lies in the emphasis evangelical Christians put on the use of reason in relationship to their faith..."

Again, a jab at conservative evangelicals.

Frankly, I'd love to see more debate and discussion on the role of faith in politics and the public square. I think it's an extraordinarily important and useful discussion. Unfortunately, former bishop Chilstrom and many of his fellow travelers on the religious left would rather name call and attack than engage in real dialogue.

The real social problem and crisis facing Minnesota and America? The breakdown of marriage.

Legislators and policy makers spend their time attempting to solve society's problems. Particularly on the state level, the focus is on addressing social problems involving health care, welfare, education, crime and so forth. All of these in my view are symptomatic to a degree of a deeper social problem which receives little to no attention. In fact, addressing this underlying problem will significantly help address these other problems. What is this problem? It's the breakdown of the marriage and family as shown by the record number of children born out of wedlock.

An excellent article discussing this problem is Maggie Gallagher's "Unmarried births: Does any one really care?"

Between 2005 and 2006 (just one year!) the proportion of out-of-wedlock births climbed from a record 36.9 percent of all births to a new record of 38.5 percent. The unmarried childbearing rate (meaning the likelihood that a given single woman of childbearing age chose to have a child) jumped 7 percent. In raw terms, 114,666 more babies faced the known hardships and heartaches of being born to unwed parents in 2006.

Almost all races and ages shared the increase. Eighty percent of teen births are now out-of-wedlock, as are 60 percent of births to early twentysomethings and 30 percent of births to women age 25 to 29. The proportion of nonmarital births among non-Hispanic whites jumped from 25.3 percent in 2005 to 26.6 percent in 2006; for non-Hispanic blacks, from 69.9 percent to 70.7 percent; Hispanic nonmarital births jumped from 48 percent to 49.9 percent.

In Minnesota, the out of wedlock birth rates rose from 29.8% to 31.7% from 2005 to 2006. While those percentages are lower than the national averages, the increase was higher in Minnesota - a 6.3% increase compared to a 4.3% national increase.

And why is this a problem? As Gallagher points out:

We know these children face a massively increased risk of negative outcomes: more poverty, dependency, infant mortality, substance abuse, school failure, criminal conduct and behavior disorders to name just a few.

She points out that the public reaction to this large increase in out of wedlock births was largely silence.

While the government does spend millions and millions to preventing teen pregnancy, its programs rarely if ever mention marriage and usually focus on contraception distribution which of course hasn't been a useful response. (I compare it to pouring fuel on the fire of teenagers with raging hormones.)

I find many people on the Left saying the government has no business being in the marriage promoting business. (Of course, they do think the government should be funding abortions, handing out condoms and endorsing various sexual lifestyles.) While some on the Right wonder if less government should apply to marriage involvement as well.

My view, and the held by the founders of our nation, is marriage is the foundational institution of a healthy society. We will not have a healthy, safe society if the children in that society aren't raised by a mom and a dad. There's no way around it. Until we get it right, social problems will only worsen and the economic foundation of our society will only erode. (The traits individuals need to be productive members of a society are learned in the family headed by a mom and a dad.)

The government's fundamental job is promotion of justice in society. That means setting the legal standard for marriage and insuring justice is secured for the members of that institution. This means one spouse can't just unilaterally walk away leaving the other party holding the bag. And children aren't viewed as pawns subject to the whims of their parents who decide they're tired of marriage and want to try something else. I think it's appropriate for government to point out to people how important marriage is and what's at stake when they make what's supposed to be a lifelong commitment.

But an even more important role rests with churches who don't get it, when they should more than anybody else, that "What God has joined together, let no man should put asunder." The church needs to recapture it's moral voice in word and deed on the critical importance of the institution of marriage to society, individuals and ultimately God.

Is Minnesota a state in decline?

Minnesotans have generally prided themselves on being progressive, on the cutting edge of positive social change and having a great quality of life, despite cold winters and mosquitoes in summer. However, the past few years there seem to be some chinks in our state's armor. We've witnessed substantial state budget deficits and economic growth lagging behind many other states. We may well lose one of our eight congressional seats after the next census because our population growth is too slow. And we witnessed the tragic Mississippi bridge collapse this past summer. A sign of technological failure and/or poor oversight. This all begs the question: Is Minnesota a state in decline or at the very least entering a period of economic and social stagnation? If so, why?

I just came across an interesting, fascinating study released by the American Legislative Exchange Council called "Rich States/Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index. ALEC is a conservative, free market oriented organization working with state legislators to promote conservative public policy proposals.

The report looks at sixteen factors, e.g. the level of state spending and taxation, migration of people to and from states, minimum wage, debt, and education freedom and so forth, and then ranks states according to these factors.

The study points out that people are migrating out of high tax states, e.g. Northeast and Midwest states for Southwest and South states in record numbers.

They point to California, which has one of the most liberal, wackiest legislatures in the country, as a state now witnessing substantial out migration despite the appeal of beaches, ocean and warm weather. And they look at the "Irish Miracle" where in the 1990s, Ireland significantly cut back on their welfare state by cutting taxes and privatizing many government services resulting in a significant immigration of people to that country.

Where does Minnesota rank overall? According to their index 35 out of 50 states. Definitely below average. Minnesota is high on taxes and middle of the pack on migration of people out of Minnesota (24th), since 2002 we've had a net outflow of people every year, and our wage growth is 28th nationally. We're ranked well, top ten, only for our legal system (2nd) - tort litigation treatment, and judicial impartiality - and education freedom (5th) - school choice, educational options.

The report mentions that some people point to a third way between a true free market approach and a socialist approach. Where government raises taxes to invest in and grow the economy and provide vital public services. They say this approach was tried in Europe and was a failure.

I believe there is more to life and the quality of life than merely dollars and cents. However, I think if one doesn't get it right in the economic realm you probably won't it right in the cultural realm. Personal freedom, limited government go hand in hand with moral and cultural well-being. Both are essential. I think Minnesota's problems go beyond just economic to moral and cultural factors. The economic red flags indicate that not all is well in the land of 10,000 lakes.