Captured Moments—Cherished Memories

By Rachel Allison

Several years ago my husband traveled through France where he met a family who had just recently moved ten miles out of town.  This meant that the family’s two teenage daughters had to be driven to town each morning for school, and then picked up each afternoon for the drive back home. My husband asked the parents if they regretted the move at this busy time in the lives of their daughters.  “Not at all,” was the response.  Both parents acknowledged that they had drawn closer to their daughters because of those miles traveled together.  The father disclosed that his daughters would talk about things in the car that they wouldn’t necessarily share in any other setting.

Remembering that lesson my husband has taken every opportunity to willingly drive or pick up our children for school, gymnastics’ practice, scouts, piano lessons or any other activity in which they are involved.  He not only gives counsel and encouragement during these drives, he also listens.  He doesn’t allow the radio to be on.  That discourages conversation.  Cell phones and IPods are in the off mode.  He doesn’t want the interruptions.  There have been times when my husband has driven into our garage and he and our son or daughter have sat out in the car for five or ten or even fifteen minutes while their conversation was concluding.

Parenting is such a busy and time-consuming commitment.  Our attitude about that time can make such a difference in the lives of our children.  And it can create frustration or it can create wonderful and cherished memories.  As busy as my husband is, he has chosen to make cherished memories.

Startling Statistics about On-line Dating

If as an organization UFI is going to promote marriage, it makes sense to pay attention to dating.  And you can’t talk about dating now without the discussion including on-line or internet dating.  So here’s an interesting infographic  from online schools that will both encourage you and scare you.

UFI Reader Poll Results: “If your spouse committed adultery…

Here’s the question we asked our UFI readers:

“If your spouse committed adultery, would you be willing to consider keeping the marriage intact?”

Here is the response:

73 Percent                   Yes, if my spouse was truly willing to change

16 Percent                   No, that’s it for me

11 Percent                   I’d stay married no matter what

We came to ask this question because of the high pro-file ending of the Shriver-Schwarzenegger marriage.  We really had no idea how our readers would respond to the question.  It appears that the vast majority of the readers are willing to give the marriage a chance.

We acknowledge the wisdom and the sacrifice of the wronged spouse who understands the critical importance of marriage and recognizes the great harm that is inflicted by divorce – and is willing to dig deep and give the marriage a second chance.

The number that said they’d stay “no matter what” was probably the most interesting response.  We’d be interested to hear what the thought process is that leads to that decision.  Anyone want to give input?

 

You might be a religious fundamentalist…

By Carol Soelberg

Over the last few years our UFI teams have noticed that anti-religious bias has become very overt and quite accepted at the UN.  But recently we’ve begun monitoring a particularly interesting and insidious brand of anti-religious fervor.  The new strategy seems to be to label your ideological and political opponent with the term “religious fundamentalist.”

It’s quite a brilliant strategy actually.  The term “religious fundamentalist” conjures up images of fanatics; crazies who break laws and usually live in isolation.  Fundamentalism has become synonymous with violence and terrorism.  It’s a very effective and simple formula:   religious fundamentalists are bad –> you are a religious fundamentalist –>  thus you are bad.  If you can be successful at labeling your opponent as “one of them” then the debate is over – you win.

This whole strategy carries with it another very tangible benefit.  Those who use it can claim to not be against religion – “Oh no, we’re not anti-religion; we’re just against religious fundamentalists!”  Then they can go on to utilize those in religious circles who might agree with them – while working to discredit and silence those who don’t.

Who’s leading this effort?

Most of the anti-family/anti-life groups in the UN system would agree with this strategy, but the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID) is certainly at the forefront of this effort.  The UN has given this group a very big microphone with which they promote their anti-religion agenda.  Their recently released publication “Towards a Future without Fundamentalisms:  Analyzing Religious Fundamentalist Strategies and Feminist Responses” received UN accolades and wide distribution.

The rhetoric in this publication is nothing short of silliness were it not so intense in its effort to diminish, libel, and stop opponents.  Their definition of a “fundamentalist” ranges from  those who want to stone women for adultery -  to a mom who wishes to stay home with her kids.  As you read through this publication, you won’t know whether to laugh or cry.  So with apologies to comedian Jeff Foxworthy, we thought we’d share the contents of this outrageous publication with a little twist.

You might be a religious fundamentalist…

 If you “idealize motherhood” and believe that children are better off being raised by their mother than by daycare, you might be a religious fundamentalist. (pg. 20 -22)

If you believe that being a mother is the “ultimate dream” and that being a working woman is an “unfortunate reality in a global economy,” then you might be a religious fundamentalist. (pg .17)

If you believe that the “natural” family is heterosexual or feel the world should function from a “hetro-normative” perspective, you might be a religious fundamentalist.  (pg. 16)

If you believe that parents should be in control of their children’s education, you might be a religious fundamentalist.  (pg. 17)

If you oppose abortion and oppose the promotion of LGBTQI behavior and rights [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer, intersexed], you might be a religious fundamentalist.  (pg. 21)

If you blame social problems on the “decline in morality” or the “disintegration of the family,” you might be a religious fundamentalist.  (pg. 18)

If you believe in “limiting women’s expression of sexuality to the confines of the heterosexual family,” you might be a religious fundamentalist.  (pg. 21)

If you support laws banning “sex work” [prostitution], you might be a religious fundamentalist. (pg. 21)

If you have “co-opted science” and use science to support your positions, you might be a religious fundamentalist. (pg. 30)

If you’re involved in your child’s school, or formed a parent group – then you must have “infiltrated” the public education system, and you just might be a religious fundamentalist.  (pg. 36)

If your religion gives you a “sense of belonging” and helps you feel a part of a community, you might be a religious fundamentalist.  (pg. 39)

If you feel your religion is a good place to interact with others and even search out a marriage companion, you might be a religious fundamentalist. (pg. 37)

If religion is providing you with opportunities to serve people and help during times of crisis and natural disasters, you might be a religious fundamentalist.  (pg. 40 & 49)

If you oppose laws to legalize abortion, then you’re probably violent and you must be a religious fundamentalist.  (pg. 43)

If you don’t believe that widespread condom distribution is the best way to combat HIV/AIDS, you’re probably a religious fundamentalist.  (pg. 43)

If you are a religious person and vote for people who share your values, you might be a religious fundamentalist. (pg. 50)

If you feel your religious beliefs and values have a place in the public square, you are probably a religious fundamentalist.  (pg. 47 & 49)

What does all this mean?

As we’ve mentioned, some of their points are so ridiculous it’s hard to believe they are for real.   Unfortunately, this is real and the groups that supported the writing of this publication are quite serious.  They are desperate to have their ideology succeed and are shocked and dismayed that religion continues to have a voice in the public square – so they want to silence that voice.  There is no recognition that religion is equally entitled to be engaged in the political and cultural dialogue.

The irony is that they speak of the traditional religious perspective as though it were the newcomer, the interloper, or the intruder – as though the promotion of abortion, redefinition of gender, and the mainstreaming of homosexual behavior have always been a societal norm.  The fact is, the “fundamental” religious beliefs they now fight are exactly what has always created the prosperous and stable societies that they claim to be striving to create.

All who hold traditional, religious, hetero-normative values and beliefs need to not be cowed or intimidated by their rhetoric of “religious fundamentalist.”  Get out and get involved!  You must be making a difference or these national and international groups wouldn’t be getting together to develop strategies to stop you.

United Families International felt it was important to make you aware of the specious tactics being used and we encourage you to take some time to research it for yourself.  As always, UFI will continue to promote and fight for laws, political structures, and religious and cultural norms that preserve and protect the family.  Let’s continue to work together in this great effort.

Grover Discusses Marriage

By Grace Sailor

When I watch this Sesame Street clip between Grover and a child, it reminds me of how simple the topic of marriage used to be. From the comments posted, it is clear that even a simple conversation about a child’s thought on marriage provokes strong feelings and debate on gay marriage.

I am saddened by the fact that I am raising children in a culture that questions the basic values of religion, marriage, and having children. These were basic foundational values even when I was growing up in the 70′s and 80′s, and were only questioned by a few. How difficult it is to be a child in a world where these values are questioned, and society makes it confusing.

It reminds me again of how important it is that we discuss these important truths with our children and grandchildren. For instance, this clip would provide an opportunity to discuss your child’s feelings about marriage and to explain that marriage is about so much more than love and companionship.  Take the opportunity to explain that marriage is a sacred commitment between a man and a woman that provides the opportunity for children to be born and to grow up in a place where they can be the most happy.

It’s a message that society needs to be reminded of every day.

Divorced? Stay close. Be involved.

By Rachel Allison

Today it’s rare to find someone that has not been personally affected by divorce.   Media is full of information on the “how to” of divorce – how to get one and how to survive one.  Recently, one article in particular caught my attention.

The father told the simple facts of his decision to divorce: the dividing of china, furniture, art, and “our young son.”  During the first couple of years “my ex and I drove back-and forth between homes across town.”  When the mother chose to move across state, the commute was more complicated.  He admitted that their son had turned into a statistic: one of the thousands of American children with two homes, two beds, two toothbrushes, and two sets of clothes and toys.

The son, at age 16, shared his own experience.  Twelve years after the divorce he still travels back and forth, but he gets to choose when and if he travels to see his mom.  Friends are an important part of his life and his decision to choose friends is at the expense of visits with his mom.  Even those visits are described by his stepfather as a cameo role. The young man described it as “painful.”  In a nutshell, “I’m always missing somebody:  my mom and step dad, friends, or my dad, step mom and younger brothers and sister.  After all these back-and-forth flights, I’ve learned not to get too emotionally attached.  I have to protect myself.”

The writer advocates that no child should have to live like this.  Having identified the innocent victims of divorce he strongly suggests that the marriage vows should be changed to include, “Do you promise that if you ever have children and wind up divorced, you will stay in the same geographical area as your kids?” Or some good common sense dictates that if you move away from your children, YOU have to do the traveling to see THEM.

Some years ago my divorced nephew bragged to family members of his devotion to his son who lived in a far-away city.  “I call every night and read a story to him.”

Having small children of my own at the time, and having experienced the mental, physical and emotional fatigue that accompanies that responsibility, I was shocked to realize that he was completely serious in his self-aggrandizement. What sacrifice??!!!

I should have asked, “Are you up-to-date on your child support?  Are you calling your son’s mother regularly to offer emotional support? (If your relationship with your ex would not permit such a phone call, call a truce for your child’s sake.) Are you encouraging him in his education and going over homework assignments with him?  Are you flying in to coach his t-ball team or at least to cheer or console their victory or loss?

Are you there to encourage strength of character, honesty, kindness, hard work, thrift, respect and a dozen other attributes that he will need to succeed in life?  If you are not, perhaps you should make a course change and move to be nearer your son.  He needs you, and you will soon realize that reading a story can be done by just about anyone.  It takes an involved, caring, devoted and present person to be a dad. That special person needs to be YOU.

Myth Buster Monday: Are gay activists trying to indoctrinate school children?

Pro-family organizations have been warning parents about it for years – schools are being used as centers for indoctrinating children to accept homosexual behavior as acceptable, mainstream, and normal.   It appears that the homosexual activists have finally owned up to their own agenda and created a lot of controversy in their own ranks in the process.

The popular on-line magazine, Queerty, recently published the article:  “Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?”    As the title states, the author not only admits that indoctrination is their goal, but tells other members of the gay community that being shy about their agenda has not served them well – and that needs to change.

Here are a few excerpts:

“They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”

“Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”

There are many other quite “remarkable” lines in this article, but much of it is too perverse and vulgar to quote – so if you go to the actual article, you’ve been forewarned.

A quick perusal of the “comments” section runs about 4 to 1 in support of what the author has written, but some Queerty readers were not so pleased:  “What an outrageously irresponsible headline. How dare you jack up hits by tossing out incendiary language which can be abused and misused by our adversaries?”  Another comment read:  “Congratulations you irresponsible morons.  Your post was immediately picked up by NOM  [National Organization for Marriage] and is now the subject of a post…You bear full responsibility for whatever comes of this.”

“What has become of this” is the truth finally being clearly stated.  No one seems to be denying that the goal is to indoctrinate children; they only are debating the wisdom of saying it openly and letting parents and the heterosexual community as a whole know about it.

 

Government in your children’s pants

There been a lot in the news recently about a topic that usually isn’t discussed in polite company.

“Intactivists” in the City of San Francisco have collected enough signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot to ban circumcision.  The measure, if passed, would prohibit circumcision on males under the age of 18.   The practice would become a misdemeanor offense carrying a punishment of up to $1,000 fine and up to one year in jail.  There is no exemption allowed for those who practice circumcision for religious reasons.

The Jewish community has already stepped forward and labeled the ballot measure as religious discrimination and a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.  “For a city that’s renowned for being progressive and open-minded, to even have to consider such an intolerant proposition…it sets a dangerous precedent,” said Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds of the City of Berkley.

Estimates are that approximately 80 percent of all men in the U.S. have been circumcised.  We at UFI have long been aware of the benefits of circumcision in the fight against the transmission of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.  Circumcision has also been found to be effective in reducing the incidence of penile cancer and urinary tract infections in the male as well as in their sexual partners.

But let’s return to the Rabbi’s comment about the “progressives” in the open-minded and tolerant city of San Francisco.  These very same people would never oppose adolescents tattooing their bodies from top to bottom, nor would they oppose adolescents putting huge extenders in their earlobes, nor inserting large amounts of silicon in strategic places.  My guess is that they have no problem with the freakish Lady Gage look of implants that distort faces and shoulders.  But circumcision – no way!

So called “progressives” are the first to state that government shouldn’t be able to tell them what to do with their bodies or how about this one:   “Keep the government out of my bedroom!”  Seems they need a taste of their own medicine.  For San Franciscans opposing this ban, here’s a slogan suggestion:  “Keep the government out of my children’s pants.”

UFI Reader Poll Results: Does fear of losing your job keep you silent on same-sex marriage issues?

Here’s the question we asked our readers:

“While at work, during a discussion on same-sex marriage or homosexuality in general, have you ever remained silent out of fear of losing your job?”

 

Here is how UFI readers responded:

38 percent          “No”

62 percent          “Yes”

Hollywood wrong…again

By Carol Soelberg

Remember last summer and the controversy surrounding actress Jennifer Aniston?  While promoting her new movie “The Switch,” Aniston had commented: 

“Women are realizing it more and more that you don’t have to settle.  They don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child.” 

Bill O’Reilly, Fox News commentator, thought that it was an ill-considered comment and chastised her with:

“She’s throwing her message out to 12 year-olds and 13 year-olds that ‘Hey you don’t need a guy.  You don’t need a dad.’”

 O’Reilly finished by calling the actress’ message “destructive to our society.”

Celebrity feud aside, I found it reassuring and encouraging that a large share of the general public agreed with O’Reilly.  Family breakdown is not something to be encouraged or celebrated.  I thought of that little brouhaha as I read through two newly released reports discussing family breakdown and poverty.

What’s happening internationally?

 A recent report authored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an alliance of richer countries, released its “first ever report on family well-being” on April 27, 2011.

According to the report, one in four children in the United States is being raised by a single parent.  This is a percentage that has been on the rise and is higher than other developed countries, according to the report.  Of the 27 industrialized countries studied by the OECD, the U.S. had 25.8 percent of children being raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 14.9 percent across the other countries.

Ireland was second (24.3 percent), followed by New Zealand (23.7 percent). Greece, Spain, Italy and Luxemburg had among the lowest percentages of children in single-parent homes.  Experts point to a variety of factors to explain the high U.S. figure, including a cultural shift toward greater acceptance of single-parent child rearing, but all seem to be derived from familial breakdown, drug use, crime, domestic violence, fatherlessness, just to name a few..

The first chapter of the report is titled “Families are Changing” and contains material on family structure and child poverty. It notes as “a particular worry that in most OECD countries, poverty risks have shifted over the past 20 years towards families with children…” A major reason for this is the steady increase in single parent households.

“The economic vulnerability of families is linked to parents’ incapacity to reconcile employment and parenthood,” says the report. That joblessness is the main cause of poverty should not come as a shock to anyone.  However, joblessness is more likely where there is only one parent, usually the mother. The report does acknowledge does acknowledge that two parents are better than one:

“Given that joblessness greatly increases the chances of a household being poor, couple households can act as a protection for children against poverty as such households are less likely to be jobless.”

 Unfortunately, projections up to 2025-2030 suggest that in almost all countries single parent households will continue to increase both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of all households with children.

Hopefully, this report from the OECD will inspire policy makers to value cultural norms, traditions and laws that re-enforce the family while realizing that a sound economy depends ultimately on the health of the family unit. Policymakers can advance an anti-poverty framework that allows civil society to flourish and individuals to thrive.

More support for strong traditional families

In a recent report issued by the Heritage Foundation,  Heritage Fellow Ryan Messmore states:

“The goal of overcoming poverty is not simply to eliminate need, but to enable people to thrive – that is, to empower them to live meaningful lives and contribute to society. Thriving is much more than a full stomach and a place to sleep. People tend to flourish in the context of healthy relationships with their families and communities. Suffering and breakdown often result when those relationships are absent or unhealthy.”

In contrast to the OECD study that calls for more socialized welfare programs and spending to replace the absence of solid families, such programs do not work and actually are counter productive. Further citing Heritage Foundation,

“Despite spending more than $16 trillion on means-tested welfare since the War on Poverty began in 1964, the official U.S. poverty rate has remained largely unchanged. During the same period, the nation’s unwed birth rate increased from 7 percent to 41 percent.”

 With more than half of all households in poverty led by single mothers, the breakdown in marriage and family over the past 40 years has devastated the well-being of thousands of women and their children and significantly hindered their chances of escaping poverty.

Government handouts can never replace the broad array of benefits derived from maintaining a cohesive family unit.  Effective responses to poverty must recognize the importance of foundational relationships like marriage, family, community, and work.

Any cultural message communicating that “marriage is optional” needs to be corrected.   If we ignore this obvious misinformation, we do so at the peril of our children and our society’s future.  Please join us as we strengthen our own families and help us to spread the message  that marriage matters!