ARTICLES and ANSWERS 2020

December 28, 2006

According to a 2006 study released by the Barna Institute, 86% of Americans are “concerned about the moral condition of the country”-and they should be. The family-the bedrock of our society and our freedoms-is in a heap of trouble.

Consider the statistics: Approximately 50% of all marriages-even among professed evangelical Christians-end in divorce. That’s according to the National Marriage Project, a research organization at Rutgers University. And for the first time in American history, as the U.S. Census Bureau recently reported, married couples make up less than 50% of American households.

Nearly 40% of all U.S. children are born out of wedlock. According to a recent government report, the number of unmarried-couple households with children has risen to more than 1.7 million-up from under 200,000 in 1970. The ramifications are alarming. For example, children living with a single mother are six times more likely to live in poverty than are children whose parents are married. The same study found that children in stepfamilies and single-parent families are almost three times more likely to drop out of school than children in intact families. Living in a single-parent home also causes a disconnect among children between family and marriage.

Finally, 43% of all U.S. women will have at least one abortion before their 45th birthday. In fact, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the most common surgical procedure in the United States is not by-pass surgery or even cosmetic surgery-it is abortion. Indeed, in 2002, approximately 1.29 million women in the U.S. had an abortion, and 49% of all unintended pregnancies today result in abortion.

These statistics tell some painful truths about America at the dawn of the new millennium. First, they show that our priorities have clearly shifted. Despite the billions we spend on childcare, toys, clothes, private lessons, etc., a concern for our children no longer seems to be a prime factor in how we live our lives.

Second, they suggest (as many have been saying for years now) that major religious institutions have virtually little to no moral impact on American society-apart from politics, that is. The Christian church is a prime example. Having become intensely political, Christian leaders today work feverishly to enact such anti-gay measures as same-sex marriage amendments while doing little to shore up the traditional family.

Third, the data supports the premise that the decline in the family leads to a decline in our democracy. Indeed, the family is where children should learn self-government, basic moral values and the beliefs that determine the future of democratic institutions. Thus, it stands to reason that without stable families, we can have no hope of producing self-reliant, responsible citizens.

Fourth, the increasing loss of the family structure leads to destabilization in society of “mediating structures”-neighborhoods, families, churches, schools and voluntary associations. When they function as they should, mediating structures limit the growth of the government. But when these structures break down, society-that is, people-look to mega-structures, such as the state, as a source of values. In America, the state-financed public schools and day care centers have increasingly assumed the role of providing “values” for children. As history teaches, the authoritarian state gladly and aggressively assumes this role and becomes a substitute family.

Finally, traditional marriage plays a critical role in the structure of free societies by interposing a significant legal entity between the individual and the state. None other than D. H. Lawrence once recognized: “The marriage bond is the fundamental connecting link in Christian society. Break it, and you will have to go back to the overwhelming dominance of the State, which existed before the Christian era. The Roman State was all-powerful, the Roman father represented the State, the Roman family was the father’s estate, held more or less in fee for the State itself. Now the question is, do we want to go back, or forward, to any of these forms of State control?”

Lawrence continued:

It is marriage, perhaps, which has given man the best of his freedom, given him his little kingdom of his own within the big kingdom of the State, given him his foothold of independence on which to stand and resist an unjust State. Man and wife, a king and queen with one or two subjects, and a few square yards of territory of their own: this, really, is marriage. It is a true freedom because it is a true fulfillment, for man, woman, and children.

There can be no easy fix for these problems. Certainly, there are no legislative or governmental solutions. Morality and the decline of the family have become convenient platforms for those on both sides of the political aisle. Having reduced the very real problems plaguing America’s families to soundbites bandied about in the quest for political dominance, today’s politicians are the last people to look to for a solution.

The solution, if there is one, is to be found where the problems start: with each man, woman and child taking responsibility for keeping their family together. So for a moment, let’s forget about politics. Forget about the debates over who gets to marry whom. Instead, let’s look around at what’s left of our neighborhoods, what’s left of our communities and what’s left of our families and put our kids first.

Because the bottom line is this: without the family, there can be no true freedom.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

No one in Iraq has a slightest doubt that Maliki is an American quisling. That’s ok with the people. In Muslims countries, rulers are not expected to represent population; the US and the Qaeda each tries to change that. Muslims are very extroversive and value fac,ade and rituals. Maliki could be a puppet, but he should behave like a tiger – Iraqi tiger. At least, Maliki managed to skip social meeting with Bush and Jordanian King Abdullah (Olmert ignored Arab mentality and met Abdullah several times, a PR disaster).

If that attention to rituals looks silly to rational Americans, it probably is. But that’s how it works in the region. To reach an agreement with Iraqis – rather than simply punish the Baathist state – the US negotiators would have to sit hours and days with various Iraqis, both bureaucrats and radicals, drinking super-sweet Iranian tea, chain-smoking on par with their opponents and talking, talking, and talking. That might or might not bring the desired results, but no other approach could deliver a stable, moderate, US-friendly Iraq.

To please his American masters, Maliki brought together fictitious coalition. Its Shiite faction does not include al-Sadr’s group, the main Shiite organization. It includes only a minor Sunni party, also non-representative. The coalition is advertised as moderate, but listen to the names: Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party (sectarians), the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (sic) in Iraq, and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (separatist organization, as the name makes clear).

The coalition is meant to squeeze Sadr out of politics. He would indeed go – into the urban battlefields. Sadr could show himself a good Muslim, promise to step down the fighting – and use the truce to train his forces. He needs time to grow the Mahdi gang into an army.

Sistani’s approval won’t cement the coalition. He is merely a religious authority. Religious power in Islam is very dispersed because every cleric and theoretically every Muslim could pronounce fatwas. People go along with famous clerics insofar as they opportunistically serve the mob’s wishes. Sistani cannot afford to condemn fighting the Sunnis, thus his blessing of the coalition could only be half-hearted. Moreover, Shiite militia includes few fundamentalists who would blindly obey Sistani. They are common guerrillas who only superficially subscribe to religion or ideology. They fight for the sake of killing. Their loyalty is with Sadr. Iran – al-Sadr’s sponsor – does not care about Iraqi Shiite bosses such as Sistani. Civil war in Iraq suits Iranian national interest: strong and hostile neighbor turns into protectorate.

Iran, not Sadr is the problem, but Sadr handsomely contributes to the situation. Oddly, the US loses its soldiers, kills Iraqis and allows still larger numbers to die in the conflict while al-Sadr, who orchestrates much of the violence, lives in safety. Why not assassinate him?

The White House PR people offended the common sense when they staged Robert Gates’ meeting with a dozen of handpicked soldiers who assured him that the army is on the right track.