I orignally posted this on an LDS discussion group about a year ago, I came across it again while sorting through some files and was impressed by how relevant it still is, so I provide it here for your perusal and comment:
On issues of politics I take it that many here have concerns in regards the upcoming presidential election, of the incoming commander-in-chief and the congress pushing social or other reforms found threatening to the established order, such as gay-marriage, or retaining current practices that you might frown upon like legal abortions. However an article by Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute in the June 25th 2007 issue of National Review causes some room to doubt about a common conservative strain of thought. I quote:
“In past decades conservatives imagined that only through maintaining specific social practices and arrangements could order and the values of a free society be preserved. Some thought, in the years before 1964, that disenfranchisement of blacks in the South was necessary to prevent catastrophic misrule. They were wrong. Others thought family life could not survive the exodus of women into the workforce. Wrong again. And others believed that only a revival of faith in Christianity could stave off social breakdown. Once more, with feeling--wrong.
“It turns out that the core middle-class values that sustain a free society can survive---- indeed, they can thrive--- even as various historically contingent embellishments are dropped along the way. Look, for example, at blue-state New England today, where the most pronounced sort of cultural liberalism coexists with of the highest incomes per head and lowest levels of social dysfunction (crime, divorce, illegitimacy, ect.) in the country”
Perhaps this matter is only tangentially related to the topics discussed in this forum, however I think it hits upon a common way of thinking espoused by many socially conservative Mormons and other Christians. I’d like to hear others takes on this, how important is it (if at all) for ‘our families’ to fight social changes in the broader society, particularly as they relate to matters of law.
3 comments:
“And others believed that only a revival of faith in Christianity could stave off social breakdown. Once more, with feeling--wrong.”
I would argue that the family has not well survived social changes of the last 50 years. I mean, it hasn’t ceased to exist, but it certainly has been compromised.
Some years ago I took a part time job in retail that threw me in with a lot of young people. When they heard I had been married 22 years, many of them were absolutely astounded. They knew of no one (parents included) who had stayed married anywhere near as long. Is it any wonder young people in droves don’t bother with marriage today? They’ve never seen one work…..why should they think theirs will prove the exception?
Of course, this likely doesn’t apply, or if so only partly, to Mormons, who have a strong family tradition. But 50 years ago, most families were Mormon-like in durability.
One of the points I'd like to make is that a moral system does not requair legal sanction to survive or even to flurish (think what the early Christians accomplished despite their persicution). This is an idea JW's doubtless countenance as they keep their distance from earthly laws. Just because a nation allows for abortion or gay marriage, doesn’t mean anyone is forced to accept these things or teach their children or congregations that they are acceptable. Any person or group has every right to place themselves in stark opposition to ideas and practices they consider immoral, and teach their children and others who will listen in accordance to their beliefs. Presumably if one really believed in the rightness of there cause they would believe that it could withstand the opposition, in addition this approach allows for the maxim amount of freedom also for those who do not prescribe to more restrictive religious world views.
I truly believe that government should keep their hands off of moral choices. It's not that I am for abortion or things like that, but it isn't the place of government to be restricting moral decisions. That is precisely why we have families and churches, a point which should be reinforced by those with a voice.
On a more personal note, would you be up for a get together on Tuesday night? Let me know.
Post a Comment