Breakdown of society in the west?

[James R]

From another thread came this comment from Ghost_007:

Though the West leads the World in technological advances and scientific breakthroughs they have massive problems regarding social issues. There are massive issues with the family unit being eradicated, the concept of marriage no longer taken seriously, a ridiculously high divorce rate, children born out of wedlock, unstable upbringings. And no one cares, members of parliament, prime ministers, presidents, no one gives a shit! the people that run our countries do not even mention these issues. They pretend its not their business, there is no moral order, only chaos.

Now religion is more than just believing in God, it is a culture, a way of life. Religion is meeting up with family and friends, religion is going to weddings, get togethers, having people in the community meet up and discuss issues affecting them all (happens in Mosques, Churches etc). When you attack the whole concept of religion without any understanding you are at risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Religion can help tackle social issues.

I'd like to discuss a few things. My questions:

1. Is the family unit really being "eradicated" in the West?
2. Why is it important to take the "concept of marriage" seriously?
3. Is a high divorce rate bad? Why?
4. What's wrong with children being born "out of wedlock"?
5. Do any of these things really lead to "unstable upbringings"?
6. Is there really "no moral order" in the West? What kind of moral order would you like to see?
7. Is it possible to seriously "meet up with family and friends, go to weddings, have get togethers, meet up and discuss issues" in the absence of religion, or not?
8. Does religion "tackle social issues" better than secularism?

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, the breakdown of the family unit is significant. Decadence in the social units of society has historically been associated with a breakdown of social structure. It usually leads [e.g. in Rome, Constantinople, Ottoman Empire etc] with the society being supplanted by another, more cohesive one.

That can happen internally [ie the barbarians in Rome] or by external migration [the Turkic tribes in Constantinople]

In his historic masterpiece, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbons identifies five major causes that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire: First, the breakdown of the family. Second, increased taxation. Third, an insatiable craving for pleasure. Fourth, an unsustainable buildup of armaments. Fifth, the decay of religion.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5360.3663.0.0

 

[John99]

in a free society there will be those whose lives are sacrificed. choosing the wrong path, be it addiction or criminal behaivior.

Erradicated is a rediculous word to use. I agree that there is more of an inclination to use divorce and then most, or at leas many, start new families.

"7. Is it possible to seriously "meet up with family and friends, go to weddings, have get togethers, meet up and discuss issues" in the absence of religion, or not?"

Of course it is.

 

[Tiassa]

Weather and climate, amusing the poor, and something about presuppositioins

The first question involves a consideration kind of like the difference between weather and climate.

I would say that, generally, the nature and role of family in Western culture are in constant transition and transformation.

The question of whether or not the family unit is being eradicated in the West hinges on the question of whether we have, in the long evolution of the family unit, passed its functional zenith. Otherwise, it's just a bit of stormy weather compared to the length of history.

If religion tackles social issues better than secularism, it is because people are afraid for their souls. That is, if they don't do something, God won't like them. To the other, a question exists whether they're solving the problem or merely alleviating the symptoms to a certain degree. (If I dope you up to the point that it doesn't hurt, have I cured your cancer?) And we might consider Oscar Wilde:

The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism - are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man's intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

(Wilde)

He also points out that this is not a solution, but an aggravation of the difficulty.

Of those questions I have not addressed, well, it's not so much that I find them ridiculous, but that I question the presuppositions leading me to any validity the questions might be assigned.

In other words, no, no, nothing, no, ha!, and huh? Best, then, to simply say, never mind.
____________________

Notes:

Wilde, Oscar. "The Soul of Man Under Socialism". Pierre J. Proudhon Memorial Computer. Accessed December 15, 2008. http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html

 

[S.A.M.]

Did Wilde advocate killing off the poor faster as a means of alleviating poverty?

More on the family unit:

The absence of the father is one the most significant predictors of criminal behaviour:

This study measured the likelihood of youth incarceration among adolescent males from father-absent households, using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (N=34,031 person-years). At baseline, the adolescents ranged from 14 to 17 years, and the incarceration outcome measure spanned ages 15 to 30 years. This study tested whether risk factors concentrated in father-absent households explained the apparent effects of father absence. Results from longitudinal event-history analysis showed that although a sizable portion of the risk that appeared to be due to father absence could actually be attributed to other factors, such as teen motherhood, low parent education, racial inequalities, and poverty, adolescents in father-absent households still faced elevated incarceration risks. The adolescents who faced the highest incarceration risks, however, were those in stepparent families, including father-stepmother families. Coresidential grandparents may help attenuate this risk, although remarriage and residential instability increased it. Social policies to support children should broaden beyond an emphasis on marriage to address the risks faced by adolescents living in stepfamilies as well.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jora/2004/00000014/00000003/art00005?crawler=true

 

[iceaura]

The adolescents who faced the highest incarceration risks, however, were those in stepparent families, including father-stepmother families. Coresidential grandparents may help attenuate this risk, although remarriage and residential instability increased it. Social policies to support children should broaden beyond an emphasis on marriage to address the risks faced by adolescents living in stepfamilies as well.

That's interesting.

We should note that incarceration rates and stays themselves have risen greatly, and often for things that were not jailed in historical times. So if incarcerating the father for, say, marijuana possession, leads to greater risk of incarceration of the children, we have an elegant feedback operating - one that must be allowed for in determining where exactly the "breakdown" lies.

btw: The average length of marriage in the US is about what it has been for most of US history. It's just that abandonment and death of one spouse has become more rare, while divorce has become more common.

 

[Tiassa]

The tragedy of our heritage

Did Wilde advocate killing off the poor faster as a means of alleviating poverty?

Not as I understand it. Then again, I might be mistaken:

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life - educated men who live in the East End - coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.

There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair.

(Wilde)

The greatest right, according to the contemporary American conscience, was not enumerated in the Declaration, although it is presumed in the Constitution. This is the right to own property. Many—and perhaps most—Americans, given a choice in the matter, would prefer to give away all their other rights. As a culture, property will be pried from our cold, dead fingers.

And look what we put ourselves through for it. For some who disagree with such lust, it doesn't take much to make the point. It should be sufficient, for instance, that in the era of two-income families, parents are advised by experts that they need to spend quality time with their children every day. When I was younger, it was a half-hour. Sometime in the last few years, I actually saw an appeal for fifteen minutes a day.

Some would say it's an evolutionary tendency. I recall a Far Side frame, years ago, that depicted a man instructing his son about how the animals were territorial. The frame was drawn to show them standing in their fenced-in yard, among many other fenced-in yards.

Don't get me wrong; we all need someplace to be that is our own, but that goes beyond the mere notion of property. In the meantime, of course, we've structured our society, to a degree, around property. Property becomes a means to acquiring more property when held as collateral against future labors.

"Property is robbery," said the great French Anarchist Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and danger to the robber. Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the time-worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all needs. The A B C student of economics knows that the productivity of labor within the last few decades far exceeds normal demand. But what are normal demands to an abnormal institution? The only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade. America is particularly boastful of her great power, her enormous national wealth. Poor America, of what avail is all her wealth, if the individuals comprising the nation are wretchedly poor? If they live in squalor, in filth, in crime, with hope and joy gone, a homeless, soilless army of human prey.

It is generally conceded that unless the returns of any business venture exceed the cost, bankruptcy is inevitable. But those engaged in the business of producing wealth have not yet learned even this simple lesson. Every year the cost of production in human life is growing larger (50,000 killed, 100,000 wounded in America last year); the returns to the masses, who help to create wealth, are ever getting smaller. Yet America continues to be blind to the inevitable bankruptcy of our business of production. Nor is this the only crime of the latter. Still more fatal is the crime of turning the producer into a mere particle of a machine, with less will and decision than his master of steel and iron. Man is being robbed not merely of the products of his labor, but of the power of free initiative, of originality, and the interest in, or desire for, the things he is making.

Real wealth consists in things of utility and beauty, in things that help to create strong, beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in. But if man is doomed to wind cotton around a spool, or dig coal, or build roads for thirty years of his life, there can be no talk of wealth. What he gives to the world is only gray and hideous things, reflecting a dull and hideous existence,--too weak to live, too cowardly to die. Strange to say, there are people who extol this deadening method of centralized production as the proudest achievement of our age. They fail utterly to realize that if we are to continue in machine subserviency, our slavery is more complete than was our bondage to the King. They do not want to know that centralization is not only the death-knell of liberty, but also of health and beauty, of art and science, all these being impossible in a clock-like, mechanical atmosphere.

(Goldman)

That was the view from 1910. We've done a lot to deal with the human toll of industry, but grudgingly. Dignity is a threat to property. Jobs might be cut, safety pushed back for another day, but heaven forbid the profits of the masters be reduced. A laborer loses his job, and he stands to lose everything. A CEO loses his job, and, vastly more often than not, he is still rich. This is the whole point of property.

Wilde seems to suggest that empowering the system to solve a problem upon which it relies only empowers the system. I say "seems" because, well, I might have missed something about his sense of humor on that one.

Of course, it might be said that the Individualism generated under conditions of private property is not always, or even as a rule of a fine or wonderful type, and that the poor, if they have not culture and charm, have still many virtues. Both these statements would be quite true. The possession of private property is very often extremely demoralising, and that is, of course, one of the reasons why Socialism wants to get rid of the institution. In fact, property is really a nuisance. Some years ago people went about the country saying that property has duties. They said it so often and so tediously that, at last, the Church has begun to say it. One hears it now from every pulpit. It is perfectly true. Property not merely has duties, but has so many duties that its possession to any large extent is a bore. It involves endless claims upon one, endless attention to business, endless bother. If property had simply pleasures, we could stand it; but its duties make it unbearable. In the interest of the rich we must get rid of it. The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No; a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious is probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest. As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy and sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be extraordinarily stupid. I can quite understand a man accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under these conditions to realise some form of beautiful and intellectual life. But it is almost incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance.

(Wilde)

Imagine a world in which the musician could make music instead of spending his days answering phone calls and emails from irate, stupid people who cannot figure how to install their new video game on a computer. Or the writer whose labor is valued for the story it tells, instead of assigned day in and day out to write manuals that don't actually tell anyone how to use something. Who, then, will clean the toilets and mop the floors? While we might find, here and there, some who truly enjoy certain work we wouldn't want to do for ourselves—e.g., septic tank service—or, at least, are at peace with the rewards of such labor, we must also admit that there are plenty of jobs that we don't want to do. One might think that these horrible jobs, which are at best tedious, would bring concomitant rewards, but they do not. Our society, it seems, would collapse if the janitors and housekeepers were paid a living wage. Sometimes, the system explains this phenomenon in a fairly straightforward way: If you pay the guy picking lettuce more money, the lettuce will cost more. If you pay the fry cook more, your french fries will cost more. This seems obvious, and for many settles the question. But when we stop to think about a society that depends on the consumption of cheap goods, it becomes apparent that the society also depends on maintaining a poverty class at home and abroad; dignity is simply too expensive for the luxury that our property-driven society pretends to require.

We have by our human endeavor done much that is worthy of admiration. But human dignity: this is a cause which we will readily surrender, because we must believe the challenge exceeds us. It is the great tragedy of our heritage.

A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.

(ibid)

____________________

Notes:

Wilde, Oscar. "The Soul of Man Under Socialism". Pierre J. Proudhon Memorial Computer. Accessed December 16, 2008. http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html

Goldman, Emma. "Anarchism: What it Really Stands For". Anarchism and Other Essays. 1910. Accessed December 16, 2008. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/aando/anarchism.html

 

[draqon]

The Western moral values are degrading and the family unit is collapsing as well.

 

[Tiassa]

A question of utility and measure

The Western moral values are degrading and the family unit is collapsing as well.

By what measure are the values degrading? Indeed, it seems to me that many values are eroding, but in some cases I question the utility of the principle at stake.

As to the collapse of the family unit, certain symptoms are self-evident. But still, what is the purpose of family in the context of the broader human endeavor?

 

[draqon]

But still, what is the purpose of family in the context of the broader human endeavor?

Purpose of family is to make us happy and be loved, and allow us to pass on what we learned to our generation.

In my sense of buddhism, family allows reincarnation to happen...by teaching our kids to be us as we are making them us.

 

[Tiassa]

Happy and loved?

Purpose of family is to make us happy and be loved, and allow us to pass on what we learned to our generation.

Happy and loved? O ... kay.

To the other, and perhaps more substantially, why pass on what we learn?

 

[draqon]

Happy and loved? O ... kay.

To the other, and perhaps more substantially, why pass on what we learn?

well I believe in buddhism, it ensures us being immortal.

and genetics-wise, it allows us to ensure that our children are the best of the best with the skills they learned from us from them to succeed.

 

[Tiassa]

Yes, but why?

well I believe in buddhism, it ensures us being immortal

Even accepting, for the purposes of argument, the comfort of immortality, I'm still not sure what you're getting at here.

and genetics-wise, it allows us to ensure that our children are the best of the best with the skills they learned from us from them to succeed.

Leaving aside what I consider the grotesque overstatement of the word "ensure", why is it important that "our children are the best of the best with the skills they learned from us [for] them to succeed"?

 

[draqon]

Even accepting, for the purposes of argument, the comfort of immortality, I'm still not sure what you're getting at here.

I feel that each one of us is the same consciousness being, however we are all in different time life of existence and we have different bodies which give us different memories and emotions to experience. So essentially it is as one person controlling different game characters...in essence. But ensuring that our memories are passed to our children through family union will allow us to not loose ourselves as much during the process of rebirth.

Leaving aside what I consider the grotesque overstatement of the word "ensure", why is it important that "our children are the best of the best with the skills they learned from us [for] them to succeed"?

Because our children are reflections of our beliefs in life that will make life most aspiring and give it meaning...We instill our beliefs in life through our children success in life, and this reflects biologically at best fit child to pass their genes again and again.

 

[S.A.M.]

Charity creates a multitude of sins.

This is a common theme with some secularists. I recall one raven showing me a similar argument from Jiddu Krishnamurthy. It appears to be peculiar to indolent men from wealthy families who have never faced any poverty and is characterised by the same individuals expecting charity [inspite of their lofty thesis against its evils] when they do. And not being averse to it at all.

 

[madanthonywayne]

From another thread came this comment from Ghost_007:

This is why, prior to 9/11, Muslims voted overwhelmingly Republican. We agree on many issues.

I'd like to discuss a few things. My questions:
1. Is the family unit really being "eradicated" in the West?

Isn't that obvious? African Americans are the most affected by this right now with over 2.3 of all births illegitimate. You can see the results by driving thru any inner city, but make sure your doors are locked and don't stop for too long

.
2. Why is it important to take the "concept of marriage" seriously?

Because it is the mechanism for reproduction and the raising of children.

3. Is a high divorce rate bad? Why?

Yes, it's bad for the children. Statistics show that children of divorced parents are more likely to become criminals, to be abused, to live in poverty, etc, etc:

• Children whose parents have divorced are increasingly the victims of abuse. They exhibit more health, behavioral, and emotional problems, are involved more frequently in crime and drug abuse, and have higher rates of suicide.
  
• Children of divorced parents perform more poorly in reading, spelling, and math. They also are more likely to repeat a grade and to have higher drop-out rates and lower rates of college graduation.
  
• Families with children that were not poor before the divorce see their income drop as much as 50 percent. Almost 50 percent of the parents with children that are going through a divorce move into poverty after the divorce.
  
• federal and state governments spend $150 billion per year to subsidize and sustain single-parent families.

http://www.heritage.org/research/family/BG1373.cfm

4. What's wrong with children being born "out of wedlock"?

Again, drive thru any American inner city to see. With the absence of any positive male role models, young boys run wild, join gangs, and terrorize the area. Being illegitimate vastly increases a child's chance of living in poverty, becoming a criminal, dropping out of school, etc.l

Out-of-wedlock childbearing and single parenthood are the principal causes of child poverty and welfare dependence in the U.S. Children raised in single parent families are more likely to: experience behavioral and emotional problems; suffer from physical abuse; engage in early sexual activity, and do poorly in school. Boys raised in single parent households are more likely to engage in crime; girls are more likely themselves to give birth outside of marriage. These effects are the result of the collapse of marriage per se rather than poverty; a poor child living with a mother and father united in marriage will do better than a similar poor child living in a single parent home.

Prolonged welfare dependence reduces children's IQ levels. Dependence also reduces a child's earnings in future years; the longer a child remains on AFDC in childhood the lower will be his earnings as an adult. Being raised on welfare also increases the probability that a child will drop out of school and will be on welfare as an adult. Analysis shows that these effects are caused by welfare per se, not simply poverty; a poor child without welfare will do better than a similar poor child with welfare. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test031501b.cfm

5. Do any of these things really lead to "unstable upbringings"?

Obviously.

6. Is there really "no moral order" in the West? What kind of moral order would you like to see?

Increased respect for traditional values.

7. Is it possible to seriously "meet up with family and friends, go to weddings, have get togethers, meet up and discuss issues" in the absence of religion, or not?

Of course it's possible. Ghost's point was simply that religion promotes these things. It gives people a reason to get together. A reason to care about each other. It promotes social cohesion.

8. Does religion "tackle social issues" better than secularism?

The tradional values expressed in religion are the result of millennia of human experience in dealing with the most basis issues of human existence. Is the traditional way always right? Of course not. But it should be given great respect and we should be hesitant to throw away the wisdom of our forefathers without a damned good reason. Should we burn witches, kill homosexuals, and avoid clothing made of more than one kind of cloth? Obviously not. But a few wacky bits aside, there is much to be said for tradional values.

 

[Zap]

These are short answers to questions which call for long ones, so forgive any oversimplification inherent in such brevity.

1. Is the family unit really being "eradicated" in the West?

Yes, the roots of family as an institution are being shorn by a mass culture which is increasingly hostile to it. Who is in control of these media conglomerates? This query answers some questions, and raises yet more. I think Tony Benn's five questions for any person with power are just as relevant for this clique: 'What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?'

2. Why is it important to take the "concept of marriage" seriously?

Because the consequences of not taking marriage seriously are yet more serious, at least if children are part of the equation.

3. Is a high divorce rate bad? Why?

I have no concerns about the divorce rate amongst couples with no children. For those with children, I regard it as a tragedy, whether such divorce is justified or not.

4. What's wrong with children being born "out of wedlock"?
5. Do any of these things really lead to "unstable upbringings"?

This is not inherently bad, but it correlates with inferior outcomes. Even non-marital family arrangements which include both mother and father tend to be shorter-lived and less stable than marital families. However, much is still unknown about this subject. [1]

6. Is there really "no moral order" in the West? What kind of moral order would you like to see?

The West is far more morally permissive and condoning than it was a century ago, or even twenty years ago, but it still has a moral order, predicated on what is commonly called 'political correctness'. I would like to see the West decentralised. The media and culture have become more homogeneous throughout Western societies, to their detriment and retardation.

7. Is it possible to seriously "meet up with family and friends, go to weddings, have get togethers, meet up and discuss issues" in the absence of religion, or not?

Of course. I think the death of religion is long overdue. It is a lead weight tied to the hands and feet of our species.

8. Does religion "tackle social issues" better than secularism?

Not in the least.

[1] http://mailer.fsu.edu/~fheiland/paa2006.pdf

 

[Sciencelovah]

1. Is the family unit really being "eradicated" in the West?

I don't think this happens only in the west. It is happening in the east as well, but not as early as in the west. Previously living in the east for about a quarter of century, I can tell the difference from year to year.

2. Why is it important to take the "concept of marriage" seriously?

For those who believe in traditional value, marriage is an ideal form of a family unit. Strong family units will form strong society. Strong societies will form a strong nation. A family unit is the simplest form of government. A marriage is the bond.

3. Is a high divorce rate bad? Why?

Yes. Refers to no. 2 above.

4. What's wrong with children being born "out of wedlock"?

Many things. Don't know where to start. Ideally children should be born in, be raised in, and be part of a strong family unit. It's about status, identity, rights according to law, upbringing, etc.

5. Do any of these things really lead to "unstable upbringings"?

In most cases yes.

6. Is there really "no moral order" in the West? What kind of moral order would you like to see?

What is a moral order? A set of law which describe what is moral and what is not? If so, the one that I'd like to see is the one that ensure freedom, democracy, but at the same time stability, security, welfare, and so on. More or less is the one that ensure the possibility to love, to live, to learn, to earn, and to be satisfied spiritually as well.

7. Is it possible to seriously "meet up with family and friends, go to weddings, have get togethers, meet up and discuss issues" in the absence of religion, or not?

Yes it is possible, but as some posters have said, religion (and culture) promotes those things. Without religion, people tend to become individualistic. Lets take an example of Nepal. They have so many many religious festival in a year, being the longest one in October (about two weeks). During this time, people got day off from official work, visiting family, singing & dancing on the street and in temples, making a lot of interesting rituals.

8. Does religion "tackle social issues" better than secularism?

Religion is a set of laws which defines what is right and wrong accordingly. Only when it is applied properly then it can tackle social issues properly. Not sure about secularism. With religion, everything becomes simple.
Example: in case of murder or rape?
* religion: death penalty
* secularism/humanitarian: human rights issues, endless debate, endless polemic..

 

[Ghost_007]

1. Is the family unit really being "eradicated" in the West?

2. Why is it important to take the "concept of marriage" seriously?

The family as a unit is much weaker than it was even 30-40 years ago and it is under constant attack from influential people that are not in touch with reality (what your everyday family goes through in life).

Strong marriages make strong, resilient families. They are the building blocks of any society. A country needs families that are strong, families where the husband, wife and children help eachother out, where children are raised moral and upright – they are the next generation after all. Questioning and attacking the actual concept of marriage will have a profound impact on the West, we can already see that people are marrying less, people are having fewer children (though the West is even more developed). The population of Europe is aging, people are living longer and people are having fewer children. This will have a massive impact in the long term, how will the aging population be looked after, who will pay for it?

http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=41893

There will be less people paying taxes, more and more immigrants are going to have to be brought in and we all know the issues that can raise. The very fabric of society is under threat.

3. Is a high divorce rate bad? Why?

People should be happy in their marriages, they must also be willing to work at their marriage, put some effort in if they think it’s in trouble. Jumping ship when times get tough is too easy (and glamorised – “gold digger”). I feel very sorry for people when their partner decides to leave them, even when they have 4 kids just because they don’t feel happy, fulfilled or some other nonsense. In Muslim culture, when a man and woman don’t feel happy in their marriage but they have 4 kids, they would more or less always stay together for the sake of their kids. That is beautiful and a lot of the time they fall back in love with eachother. People are too quick to pull the plug.

The celebrities that dominate our lives have an atrocious record of divorce (particularly those that are young). Such divorces show people are marrying the wrong people, they are making mistakes in choosing partners or they simply do not understand marriage. These are role models for the young? Is there not something wrong there?

4. What's wrong with children being born "out of wedlock"?

5. Do any of these things really lead to "unstable upbringings"?

Children born out of wedlock are less likely to have a stable upbringing as the ties between the kid’s parents are likely to be weaker. The kid would probably spend a lot more time with the mother when s/he would need the father as well, they both bring different qualities to their upbringing as I’m sure most people here would agree.

If you look at it from a grass-roots level, your average single parent would struggle raise children on his or her own, it’s not easy. Financially it’s very difficult and it’s usually the case that they can only afford to live in places where opportunities for their children are limited (poor schools, little in terms of parks and recreational activities), academic achievement tends to be low, unemployment high, a lot of criminal activity.

6. Is there really "no moral order" in the West? What kind of moral order would you like to see?

Traditional values are not taken seriously. Plus we need strong role models, we need the decision makers and well thought of people (successful businessmen, footballers etc.) to live amongst every day people and engage with them.

And who the hell is Paris Hilton? 50 Cent? Why do these immoral, talentless pieces of garbage fill our newspapers? They have no morals, openly engage in behaviour that is decadent and it makes them millions of dollars, we lap it up. Seriously, why do we even know these people exist. The obsession with celebrity is another social ill (everyone wants a piece of it – why we have so many stupid 'talent' shows), these nobodies dominate our lives, when this happens we are actually promoting and glamourising sleeping around, criminal activity, drug dealing, gun crime and all the other crap they do etc.

There was this really depressing link I had about role models for children in the UK, I can’t seem to find it so this one will have to suffice (this one is nowhere near as depressing).

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24489130-5001021,00.html

7. Is it possible to seriously "meet up with family and friends, go to weddings, have get togethers, meet up and discuss issues" in the absence of religion, or not?

You have misunderstood my point, religion helps in promoting those things, religion helps build relationships between families, it is often the case that those that are more religious are more family orientated. My English mates tend to live very isolated lives, many have very little contact with their uncles, aunties, cousins etc. and they have roots in this country going back hundreds of years. If you look at Whites in the UK and compare them to people of other ethnicities I think you’ll find that it is the Whites that live more isolated lives, they are less likely to marry, have weaker ties with their family etc.

Here’s an interesting link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7755641.stm

Community life in Britain has weakened substantially over the past 30 years, according to research commissioned by the BBC.

8. Does religion "tackle social issues" better than secularism?

Well it’s clear that the current system will not challenge issues such as anti-social behaviour, the elderly living in fear of youngsters, binge drinking, drug taking etc.

New measures need to be brought in to shake things up. Binge drinking costs the UK £20 billion a year:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1441867/Binge-drinking-costs-UK-20bn-a-year.html

The cost of clearing up alcohol-related crime is a further £7.3 billion a year. Drink leads to a further £6 billion in "social costs", the study said. Authors of the report - which will form the basis of ministerial attempts to tackle drink-related problems - believe even these figures to be conservative.

The study said that a third of men and a fifth of women fail to drink sensibly. Four out of 10 men and 22 per cent of women binge drink and youngsters are starting to binge drink at an earlier age.

The report said there are 1.2 million incidents of alcohol-related violence a year. Four out of 10 visits to hospital casualty wards are drink-related, rising to seven out of 10 at weekends between midnight and 5am.

Between 800,000 and 1.3 million school children are affected by parents with drink problems, it added.

Binge drinking strains NHS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/7471361.stm

Who is going to sort this mess out?...

 

[John99]

"The population of Europe is aging, people are living longer and people are having fewer children. This will have a massive impact in the long term, how will the aging population be looked after, who will pay for it?"

yeah, wherever they keep accurate statistics shows the population to be aging.

And who the hell is Paris Hilton? 50 Cent? Why do these immoral, talentless pieces of garbage fill our newspapers? They have no morals, openly engage in behaviour that is decadent and it makes them millions of dollars, we lap it up. Seriously, why do we even know these people exist. The obsession with celebrity is another social ill (everyone wants a piece of it – why we have so many stupid 'talent' shows), these nobodies dominate our lives, when this happens we are actually promoting and glamourising sleeping around, criminal activity, drug dealing, gun crime and all the other crap they do etc.

no different than any other time in history. the boojwah (sp) elite...:shrug: we can bring in a dictator to clamp down on it but then the dictator and his cronies will be living it up in secret...what can you do?

do as i say and not as i do shall become the mantra.