In a People's magazine story, Elin Nordgren, Tiger Wood's now ex-wife, discusses how she's "been through hell" as a result of Tiger's infidelities."I've been through hell," Nordegren said in an interview with People magazine released Wednesday, two days after she and Woods were officially divorced. "It's hard to think you have this life, and then all of a sudden — was it a lie? You're struggling because it wasn't real. But I survived. It was hard, but it didn't kill me."I've been told by psychologist who's counseled thousands of people that women who experienced rape and infidelity found the infidelity more damaging. I found that hard to believe but he said multiple women had told him that.
Unfortunately, our culture and society have so devalued marriage and devolved to doing whatever makes you "happy" that we've opened the door wide to unilateral divorce and infidelity. As a result there are a lot of walking wounded in our midst.
Showing posts with label Tiger Woods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tiger Woods. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
The devastation of infidelity.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
"Tiger Woods needs Christ" -- Brit Hume
The sparks flew when Brit Hume recently said that Tiger Woods needs the redemption and forgiveness that only Jesus Christ can give. Hume, who was formerly a commentator on FOX News and before that a reporter for ABC News, made those comments during a FOX round table discussion of Tiger's infidelity problems.
Here's a follow up to his comments on the O'Reilly Factor.
I absolutely agree with Brit. Tiger's problems are, as all of ours are, ultimately questions of the heart. And that's where ultimately only Christ offers help.
There are those who will angrily denounce these comments as narrow minded and bigoted but that's to be expected in our relativist cultural mindset, where the only one who is wrong is the one who says there is truth we can know. (Even though those who express such sentiments are implicitly saying their views are the truth. That's known as inconsistency at best and at worse hypocrisy.)
Hopefully, Tiger will realize that there are much more important things in life than golfing and material success. Paramount is the condition of one's soul where one will spend eternity.
Here's a follow up to his comments on the O'Reilly Factor.
I absolutely agree with Brit. Tiger's problems are, as all of ours are, ultimately questions of the heart. And that's where ultimately only Christ offers help.
There are those who will angrily denounce these comments as narrow minded and bigoted but that's to be expected in our relativist cultural mindset, where the only one who is wrong is the one who says there is truth we can know. (Even though those who express such sentiments are implicitly saying their views are the truth. That's known as inconsistency at best and at worse hypocrisy.)
Hopefully, Tiger will realize that there are much more important things in life than golfing and material success. Paramount is the condition of one's soul where one will spend eternity.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Tiger Woods, adultery, and public outcry. Why liberal elites don't get it.
I was interviewed by Pat Kessler for WCCO for a story on Minnesota's adultery statute and the Tiger Woods situation last week.
The story poked fun at Minnesota's adultery statute because it applies to a married woman who has sexual relations with another man but not a married man who has sex with an unmarried woman. (Tiger could have been tried under our state's fornication statute.)
The story highlights the liberal mindset of elites in Minnesota society. Senator Ellen Anderson, DFL'er from Minneapolis, was also interviewed for the story and was incredulous that we have a law on the books against adultery. She compared it to countries which stone people to death for things like adultery. She, therefore, thinks putting a person in jail for adultery is also ridiculous. We're a much too enlightened society for that.
That's interesting. I suspect she supports child support penalties, which include jail time for parents who fail to make child support payments. Yet adultery can be just as devastating to a marriage and child as a parent's failure to make child support payments. Why is adultery not that big a deal to her?
One has to look at her worldview. There's something unique about sex for Senator Anderson, I believe. Her record at the legislature shows she's more than willing to pass laws governing behavior in most areas of life, to social engineer. Yet sex is off limits for her. (Her thoughts on adultery are consistent with her previous efforts to repeal our state's anti-sodomy several years ago. She tried to do it through ridicule - lumping it in with other laws she considered archaic like a ban on Sunday auto sales and restrictions on traveling carnivals. The only problem was she couldn't get the support of other legislators. She said that "Anything which has to do with sex becomes a political football around the Capitol." )
Why is the area of sexual behaviors off limits for her? I think because she's a child of the sexual revolution and thus has an ideological commitment to the notion that anything goes sexually as long as it's consensual. Yet she and others have a blind spot for the enormous damage and harm to society, families, parents and children resulting from embracing the sexual mores of the sexual revolution. In fact, she and others at the legislature spend a good bit of their time attempting to deal with the fallout from marriage and family breakdown.
The decline of the family and marriage have enormous negative social consequences for every area of society: Poverty. Personal emotional, physical and psychological damage to spouses and children. Economic decline. Expanding size and cost of government. Epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases. Over a million abortions nationally. Yet marriage and family are treated in a cavalier manner by sexual liberationists. Why? Because their worldview centers around a radical individualism. It's all about me - my pleasure, my personal satisfaction, my wants, my desires. The only transcendent law governing society is what satisfies the individual. I should be able to do anything I want, sexual or otherwise, as long as it's consensual.
In addition, they believe the state should make an effort to mitigate the consequences of one's poor choices. Have a kid of wedlock? Receive welfare support. Engage in promiscuous sexual behavior? Receive free contraceptives. Or maybe have your HPV vaccination paid for by the state. Get pregnant because your contraceptive failed and you don't want the child? Receive a abortion paid for by the state.
Yet this begs the question, why the public uproar about Tiger Woods and his apparent multiple adulteries? Isn't his behavior none of our concern? Isn't it a private matter? No. People know there is a moral law out there where some things are right and wrong and Tiger flagrantly violated this law. Tiger wasn't the poster child of the pro-family movement, so people were not upset with his hypocrisy. They know what he did was wrong and are concerned about the public message this public figure and his behavior sends to the rest of society.
Certainly, Tiger deserves our encouragement and prayers as he attempts to get his marriage and family life back in order. But we shouldn't say his adulteries are not a big deal.
The story poked fun at Minnesota's adultery statute because it applies to a married woman who has sexual relations with another man but not a married man who has sex with an unmarried woman. (Tiger could have been tried under our state's fornication statute.)
The story highlights the liberal mindset of elites in Minnesota society. Senator Ellen Anderson, DFL'er from Minneapolis, was also interviewed for the story and was incredulous that we have a law on the books against adultery. She compared it to countries which stone people to death for things like adultery. She, therefore, thinks putting a person in jail for adultery is also ridiculous. We're a much too enlightened society for that.
That's interesting. I suspect she supports child support penalties, which include jail time for parents who fail to make child support payments. Yet adultery can be just as devastating to a marriage and child as a parent's failure to make child support payments. Why is adultery not that big a deal to her?
One has to look at her worldview. There's something unique about sex for Senator Anderson, I believe. Her record at the legislature shows she's more than willing to pass laws governing behavior in most areas of life, to social engineer. Yet sex is off limits for her. (Her thoughts on adultery are consistent with her previous efforts to repeal our state's anti-sodomy several years ago. She tried to do it through ridicule - lumping it in with other laws she considered archaic like a ban on Sunday auto sales and restrictions on traveling carnivals. The only problem was she couldn't get the support of other legislators. She said that "Anything which has to do with sex becomes a political football around the Capitol." )
Why is the area of sexual behaviors off limits for her? I think because she's a child of the sexual revolution and thus has an ideological commitment to the notion that anything goes sexually as long as it's consensual. Yet she and others have a blind spot for the enormous damage and harm to society, families, parents and children resulting from embracing the sexual mores of the sexual revolution. In fact, she and others at the legislature spend a good bit of their time attempting to deal with the fallout from marriage and family breakdown.
The decline of the family and marriage have enormous negative social consequences for every area of society: Poverty. Personal emotional, physical and psychological damage to spouses and children. Economic decline. Expanding size and cost of government. Epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases. Over a million abortions nationally. Yet marriage and family are treated in a cavalier manner by sexual liberationists. Why? Because their worldview centers around a radical individualism. It's all about me - my pleasure, my personal satisfaction, my wants, my desires. The only transcendent law governing society is what satisfies the individual. I should be able to do anything I want, sexual or otherwise, as long as it's consensual.
In addition, they believe the state should make an effort to mitigate the consequences of one's poor choices. Have a kid of wedlock? Receive welfare support. Engage in promiscuous sexual behavior? Receive free contraceptives. Or maybe have your HPV vaccination paid for by the state. Get pregnant because your contraceptive failed and you don't want the child? Receive a abortion paid for by the state.
Yet this begs the question, why the public uproar about Tiger Woods and his apparent multiple adulteries? Isn't his behavior none of our concern? Isn't it a private matter? No. People know there is a moral law out there where some things are right and wrong and Tiger flagrantly violated this law. Tiger wasn't the poster child of the pro-family movement, so people were not upset with his hypocrisy. They know what he did was wrong and are concerned about the public message this public figure and his behavior sends to the rest of society.
Certainly, Tiger deserves our encouragement and prayers as he attempts to get his marriage and family life back in order. But we shouldn't say his adulteries are not a big deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
