eChurch Blog

Cross posted from Virtue Online

By John W. Whitehead
THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
johnw@rutherford.org

“Statesmen may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”-John Adams, letter to Zabdiel Adams (21 June 1776)

American society has succumbed to a rampant materialism. And now it has passed down to our young people. In fact, studies show that a large percentage of young people between the ages of 16 and 25 don’t see any meaning or purpose to life at all. Another study in 2009 showed that 15% of teenagers in grades 7 through 12 don’t think they will live to the age of 35, which causes them to take part in adverse or risky behavior-drugs, wild parties, getting arrested by police, and even suicide.

As we have lost our sense of meaning, morality and spirituality, the erosion of our freedoms on virtually every front has accelerated. And, make no mistake about it, freedom in the true sense of the word is always undergirded by a common moral and religious system. As John Adams opined: “Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

Increasingly, we are headed toward a spiritually dead-end society as our schools and universities, reluctant to teach values, avoid religion as if it were a plague. As a result, in the words of Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “men have forgotten God.” He knew of what he spoke. For a short time, Solzhenitsyn was exiled in the United States where he observed Western culture first hand. As a result, Solzhenitsyn tended to reject the Western emphasis on materialism based largely upon his belief in Christian values.

Solzhenitsyn spent eight years in Russian prisons and labor camps for criticizing Joseph Stalin. After his release in 1956, he began to write, producing some of the most intimate and detailed accounts of the inhumane treatment of the Russian people at the hands of the Communist government. His books have become classics: Cancer Ward (1968), August 1914 (1971), The Gulag Archipelago (1973), The Oak and the Calf (1980), among others.

In 1970, Solzhenitsyn was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. In 1983, Solzhenitsyn won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. In his London address upon accepting the prize, Solzhenitsyn summed up his belief that virtually every problem we face in the West can be reduced to a single premise: “men have forgotten God.” Broadly, Solzhenitsyn’s point was that in our secularistic age, we have overthrown spirituality for materialism but with far-reaching ramifications-including the loss of freedom. We might pause for a moment and consider Solzhenitsyn’s analysis of our state of being.

The following are some excerpts from his Templeton address:

Imperceptibly, through decades of gradual erosion, the meaning of life in the West has ceased to be seen as anything more lofty than the “pursuit of happiness,” a goal that has even been solemnly guaranteed by constitutions. The concepts of good and evil have been ridiculed for several centuries; banished from common use, they have been replaced by political or class considerations of short lived value. It has become embarrassing to state that evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it enters a political system. Yet it is not considered shameful to make daily concessions to an integral evil. Judging by the continuing landslide of concessions made before the eyes of our very own generation, the West is ineluctably slipping toward the abyss. Western societies are losing more and more of their religious essence as they thoughtlessly yield up their younger generation to atheism.

Atheist teachers in the West are bringing up a younger generation in a spirit of hatred of their own society. Amid all the vituperation we forget that the defects of capitalism represent the basic flaws of human nature, allowed unlimited freedom together with the various human rights; we forget that under Communism (and Communism is breathing down the neck of all moderate forms of socialism, which are unstable) the identical flaws run riot in any person with the least degree of authority; while everyone else under that system does indeed attain “equality”-the equality of destitute slaves. This eager fanning of the flames of hatred is becoming the mark of today’s free world. Indeed, the broader the personal freedoms are, the higher the level of prosperity or even of abundance-the more vehement, paradoxically, does this blind hatred become. The contemporary developed West thus demonstrates by its own example that human salvation can be found neither in the profusion of material goods nor in merely making money.

Here again we witness the single outcome of a worldwide process, with East and West yielding the same results, and once again for the same reason: Men have forgotten God.

With such global events looming over us like mountains, nay, like entire mountain ranges, it may seem incongruous and inappropriate to recall that the primary key to our being or non-being resides in each individual human heart, in the heart’s preference for specific good or evil. Yet this remains true even today, and it is, in fact, the most reliable key we have. The social theories that promised so much have demonstrated their bankruptcy, leaving us at a dead end. The free people of the West could reasonably have been expected to realize that they are beset by numerous freely nurtured falsehoods, and not to allow lies to be foisted upon them so easily. All attempts to find a way out of the plight of today’s world are fruitless unless we redirect our consciousness, in repentance, to the Creator of all: without this, no exit will be illumined, and we shall seek it in vain.

Our life consists not in the pursuit of material success but in the quest for worthy spiritual growth. Our entire earthly existence is but a transitional stage in the movement toward something higher, and we must not stumble and fall, nor must we linger fruitlessly on one rung of the ladder. Material laws alone do not explain our life or give it direction. The laws of physics and physiology will never reveal the indisputable manner in which the Creator constantly, day in and day out, participates in the life of each of us, unfailingly granting us the energy of existence; when this assistance leaves us, we die. And in the life of our entire planet, the Divine Spirit surely moves with no less force: this we must grasp in our dark and terrible hour.

To the ill-considered hopes of the last two centuries, which have reduced us to insignificance and brought us to the brink of nuclear and non-nuclear death, we can propose only a determined quest for the warm hand of God, which we have so rashly and self-confidently spurned. Only in this way can our eyes be opened to the errors of this unfortunate twentieth century and our bands be directed to setting them right. There is nothing else to cling to in the landslide: the combined vision of all the thinkers of the Enlightenment amounts to nothing.

Our five continents are caught in a whirlwind. But it is during trials such as these that the highest gifts of the human spirit are manifested. If we perish and lose this world, the fault will be ours alone.

By: David Mathis (Desiring God Blog)

The crowds ate Jesus’ multiplied bread and were filled. But the next day, their stomachs were again empty, and their query to Jesus made it plain that they had missed the point of the loaves—that Jesus is the Bread of Life.

Jesus answered their request, which alluded to Moses and wilderness manna, with a double denial and an amazing offer. Denials: It was not Moses who gave the manna but God; and the ultimate point of the manna was not full tummies but something bigger—the “true bread” coming from heaven. Amazing offer: “My Father gives you the true bread from heaven.”

Don’t miss the word “you.” Most of the crowd is not going to receive it. But Jesus says that God is giving it. This is the way Christians go to the world and speak to the world: “God has given you the bread of life. He offers it to you. It is free. Take it. Eat it.”

Jesus then says explicitly that he is the one they hunger for: “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” Jesus and all that God is for us in him is what we hunger and thirst for, and saving faith is being satisfied in him.

Verses 37­-40 then make at least 5 statements of God’s sovereign working:

1. God gives his chosen ones to Jesus.
2. Because God gives them to Jesus, they come to Jesus.
3. Those who are given to Jesus and come to Jesus are omnipotently and eternally kept by Jesus. None is lost.
4. Jesus will raise us from the dead on the last day.
5. Finally, the unshakeable foundation for all this sovereign work of God—his giving, our coming, his keeping, his raising—the unshakeable foundation of it all (mentioned three times lest we miss it!) is the will of God.

Cross posted from the Rosh Pina Project

Israeli Messianic Jewish pastor Tony Simon reports on a local council official who misused his authority to harass and illegally arrest evangelists. According to Simon:

“We had come to a Festival in Akko, a mixed Jewish and Arab Israeli northern coastal town, and were singing and handing out literature. All was going well when suddenly an inspector from the local authority came to us demanding that we stop handing out literature, calling it “missionary material”. He shouted that it was “forbidden”. I told him we were not breaking the law and if he had a problem to call the police. A police car pulled up but there was no policeman in the car. The inspector said “get in the car” and I said no, get the police (I asked one person to film the incident and the inspector threatened that he would break the camera) He used force to try and get my books off me and tried to force me into the car by pushing me. He did not succeed, inspectors can detain but they cannot arrest and this man was abusing his authority. He was an angry man and it was obvious that he had a vendetta against believers in Jesus, he called us “Crusaders” Eventually a policeman did come and I went with him to the police station, but this was a formality as I was not doing anything illegal and the police did not charge me with anything. The man from the municipal authority was just using this to intimidate us. They were mentioning the word “missionary” constantly, when this word is used in Israel it is always in the negative with evil connotations – and this was at a Festival where others – not just believers, could freely give out literature as they pleased, I saw Chabad ( an ultra orthodox Jewish organization) there doing just that.

In the end they took our literature and said it has been destroyed (including New Testaments) and gave me a large fine for distributing what they called “advertisements”, which was untrue, it was just gospel material. We have a lawyer and will fight this in court because what they did was illegal, we also found out that a day earlier they did the same thing to another believer, they also hit him. As I left I told the inspector that I forgive him and pray that he will be blessed.”

By Barry Rubin

It is always the same theme: Palestinians are the victims of Israel. They want an end to the “occupation,” which in a real sense has not existed for 15 years, and are desperate for a state of their own. Help us! Help us! Help us!

But the funny thing is that it doesn’t turn out that the Palestinian political leaders behave as if they actually believe this stuff. Between 1948 and 1988, the Palestinian leadership explicitly rejected negotiations with Israel, rejected any two-state solution, and openly sought total victory. This was true for two decades after Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Indeed, in 1979, for example, when local Palestinian notables indicated an interest in negotiating with Israel for a state (in the framework of the Egypt-Israel Camp David agreement), PLO leader Yasir Arafat told them they’d be traitors and die if they did any such thing.

In 1988, the PLO said it wanted a state of its own but did so with such double-talk language that it was all too clear this was intended only as a springboard for a second round in which Israel would be destroyed. Then the PLO opened a dialogue with the United States based on its agreement to stop terrorism. Though the United States bent over backwards to ignore terrorist attacks (it’s only a specific member group in the PLO attacking so it doesn’t count, said the State Department), Arafat so blatantly broke his promise that the dialogue was broken off.

Then Arafat supported Saddam Hussein of Iraq in his invasion of Kuwait and the Palestinian leader expressed the hope that Iraq would defeat the United States.

What followed at the PLO’s moment of weakness—Saddam defeated; the angry Kuwaitis and Saudis cut off his money—was an act of what they hoped would be enlightened generosity by Israel and America: now that the PLO was so defeated, they reasoned, it would see that victory was impossible and make peace. The result, the Oslo peace process, proved the Palestinian leadership didn’t want a stable peace with a two-state solution. Arafat repeatedly broke his commitments.

And when the moment of truth came, both at Camp David and in the Clinton plan during 2000, the Palestinian leadership (now the Palestinian Authority, PA) turned down offers of a state. Instead, Arafat launched an armed terrorist assault on Israel that went on for five years until the Palestinians were defeated.

Other than Hamas taking over the Gaza Strip, which cripples the PA’s negotiating capacity, nothing much has happened since then. The Palestinian leadership has not even begun to prepare its people for accepting Israel’s existence and peace. On the contrary, it has become even more extreme, preparing them for endless warfare and a refusal to accept Israel’s existence but rather bring it to an end.

I reluctantly present the above history because it is all too generally forgotten today. Why is reality reversed, with the Palestinians the alleged victim of an Israeli refusal to make peace?

The answer is that if one only looks at a snapshot of the present on the basis of either very little knowledge or a set of stereotypes, that interpretation makes sense. Israel wins; the Palestinians lose. Israel is strong; the Palestinians are weak. Israel is prosperous and the Palestinian economy is a mess.

And so many Westerners reason as follows: No one would voluntarily keep engaging in losing wars, choose poverty and occupation, and not want a state of their own. Therefore, the Palestinians must be forced into this situation by Israel. And the solution is more talks, more Israeli compromises, some clever new proposal about Jerusalem or borders or some other detail.

That makes sense in terms of Western sensibilities and politics but not in terms of Middle Eastern ones. The Palestinian leadership—which is quite well off materially, of course, you should have seen their villas in Tunis and now in the West Bank which are much nicer than your home—doesn’t care about its people. State? They are running things already. Poverty? They aren’t poor. Suffering? Well, they aren’t suffering and that others keep suffering is preferable to treason against Islam and giving Arab rights to the whole country, isn’t it?

And besides, material improvement makes people soft (that’s their view of the West). If Palestinians do have a state and higher living standards they will be seduced by materialism and not want to fight on. This kind of thinking is far clearer with Hamas but is also in the saddle with Fatah and the PA.

Even today, with the Palestinians divided into two separate regimes, Israel getting steadily stronger, the main strategy being discussed by Fatah and the PA isn’t compromise but escalation. Thus, Saeb Erakat, one of the most relatively moderate people in the PA leadership (and the only one of the pre-1994, old West Bank notables still in any position of responsibility) said, in effect, that the more Palestinians lose, the more they demand:

“With the continuation of settlement activities, the two-state solution is no longer an option.”

Continuation? There have been no new settlements in 15 years or in general—there might be small exceptions—but the territorial expanse of settlements has not increased. Eraket said this after Israel announced it would finish 3000 apartments being built now and then freeze construction. His words do not correspond with reality, now more than ever.

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton responded with logic: “Getting into final status negotiations will allow us to bring an end to settlement activity.” True, but indeed there is an even better answer: Getting a Palestinian state would end the “occupation” and remove all the settlements on Palestinian territory.

Yet that was a decision the Palestinians could have made in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, as well as throughout this almost completed decade.

Note the Western thinking—if you want a concession you must compromise to get it—with the Middle Eastern approach—give us what we want or we’ll hold our breath till we turn blue.

Instead, Erakat proposes that the Palestinians “refocus their attention on the one-state solution where Muslims, Christians and Jews can live as equals.” No doubt this means “equals” in an Islamic and Arab state, with the Israelis turning over all they’ve created and earned for 60 years to a dictatorship of those who have spent their time in trying to kill them rather than by engaging in productive labor.

This would never happen, of course, unless Israel was either militarily defeated, collapsed from within, was destroyed by international action, or some mixture of the above.

But in fact the Fatah leadership, with a few exceptions, never accepted the two-state solution.

A Western observer would respond that these things are not going to happen and therefore the Palestinian leadership could not possibly believe such nonsense. Well, they do believe it—or at least they partly believe it and know that this is the only permissible public stance in Palestinian society. This view is the basis for their political behavior, a factor viewable on a daily basis and one that they understand completely.

To recall how little progress Palestinians have made in thinking about this issue, remember that what they are talking about now was a program first proposed in 1968 and adapted by the PLO in 1974. After 35 years, they are still in the same place. As for the word “refocus,” Erakat is well aware that this has always been the focus.

A few years ago, Erakat was addressing a visiting Western delegation and told them that the Palestinian program was nonsense and could never succeed. After basically denouncing the real mistakes the Palestinians have made, he looked around nervously and said, “I didn’t say any of that.”

In his more recent interview, Erakat said. “This is the moment of truth for us.”

Yes, it is always the moment of truth. The problem is that at the moment of truth you always tell lies.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Patriarch Kirill sounds just like Pope Benedict with this message, perhaps they have been sharing notes. I wonder what Patriarch Kirill makes of a devout Catholic as the new emperor of Europe?

Interfax

Moscow, November 23, Interfax – Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia is convinced that Europe can’t develop without a support of Christian values.

“Christianity has formed Europe’s values basis and idea. Outside the Christian tradition it is impossible to become aware of the inner contents and driving mechanism of the development of this region and the cultural code of the ethnoses inhabiting it,” said the greeting of Patriarch Kirill to the participants of the conference Identity of Values for Europe which is passing in Venice at the initiative of the European People Party.

Therefore, the Primate of Russian Orthodox Church has continued, “every stage in the building of our common home cannot be reached without reliance on the Christian witness.”

“Europe’s Christian identity is an immutable given which cannot be destroyed without destroying the European world itself,” Patriarch Kirill has underlined who is quoted by its press service.

He has also urged to increase greatly Christian principles, “putting them in the foundation of all the socially significant projects.” According to the greeting, this will contribute to the preservation of the identity and integrity of European nations and give a key for conducting a thorough dialogue with different cultures and civilizations.

Excellent research from the WorldPublicOpinion Website:-

As the UN General Assembly prepares to debate a proposal calling for nations to take action against the defamation of religion, majorities in 13 of 20 nations polled around the world support the right to criticize a religion.

On average, across all countries polled, 57% of respondents agree that “people should be allowed to publicly criticize a religion because people should have freedom of speech.” However, an average of 34% of respondents agree that governments “should have the right to fine or imprison people who publicly criticize a religion because such criticism could defame the religion.”

The issue of whether freedom of speech should extend to discussions of religion has stirred considerable controversy in recent months. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a group of 56 Muslim nations, is championing a proposed U.N. resolution that calls on all nations of the world “to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular.”

The resolution was passed by the U.N. Human Rights Council in March and is expected to come before the General Assembly before the end of 2009. Similar resolutions have gained the rights panel’s approval since 1999 and have been passed by the General Assembly since 2005.

Human rights advocates and several Western governments, including the United States, oppose the resolution, saying it restricts freedom of expression and could be used to curb religious freedoms rather than protect them. This week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States “will stand against discrimination and persecution. But an individual’s ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others’ freedom of speech. … Differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.”

Zamir Akram, a representative of the OIC, defended the resolution earlier this month, saying that the organization “attached great importance to the exercise of freedom of belief and expression, but the exercise of this right carried with it duties and responsibilities, including the need to fight against hate speech.”

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 18487 respondents in 20 nations. This includes many of the largest nations–India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia–as well as Mexico, Chile, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, and South Korea. Polling was also conducted in Taiwan and Hong Kong. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 25 and July 9, 2009.

Support for the right to criticize religion is strongest in the United States, with 89%, compared to just 9% support for government restrictions. Chile is next with 82% support, followed by Mexico (81%), Britain (81%), Germany (76%), Poland (68%), Azerbaijan (67%), France (66%), Russia (61%), South Korea (59%), Turkey (54%), Kenya (54%), and Ukraine (53%). In addition, 68% of Taiwanese and 81% in Hong Kong agree the ability to criticize religion should be a right.

Though the strongest supporters of restrictions on criticism of religions are in Muslim countries a separate poll by WPO in 2008 showed that overwhelming majorities said it is at least somewhat important for people to have the right to express any opinion, including criticism of the government or religious leaders. This included Indonesia (94%), the Palestinian territories (94%), and Egypt (80%) — Iraq and Pakistan were not included in the survey. In fact, clear majorities in every one of the 20 nations included in that poll took the same position, ranging from 69% in India to 98% in the United States.

However the 2008 poll also asked whether governments should have the right to prohibit certain political or religious views from being discussed, and Indonesia (55%) was one of only three countries where a majority answered in the affirmative. Kenya (67%) and Thailand (63%) did so as well. Egypt was evenly divided, 49% yes and 49% no, while more people in the remaining 16 countries said governments should not have such a right.

The two non-Muslim countries where majorities responded to the recent WPO poll by saying governments should be able to fine or imprison people for criticizing religions are India and Nigeria. Both were founded in the 20th century with borders that were drawn by former colonial powers in a way that encompassed a variety of religions, including a large Muslim minority. And both have since experienced periodic spates of sectarian violence that have frequently involved Muslims. This suggests that their support of government restrictions may stem not from a popular push to defend Islam — Muslims make up roughly half of Nigeria’s population but just 13% of India’s — but from a broadly shared desire to maintain order by curbing criticism of religions.

In Nigeria, that is borne out by the fact that Muslims and Christians respond almost identically to the poll question. Fifty-four percent of Christians and 53% of Muslims favor government restrictions, while 45% of Muslims and 43% of Christians say criticism of religion should be allowed.
Of the seven nations where most people agree with that criticism of religion should be prohibited five have overwhelmingly Muslim populations — Egypt (71%), Pakistan (62%), Iraq (57%), Indonesia (49%), and the Palestinian territories (51%). Another two — India (59%) and Nigeria (54%)– have historically been plagued by sectarian violence.

Previous related Posts

An Atheist civil rights group today expressed concern that a proposed U.N. Resolution banning “defamation” of religion threatens civil liberties and gives religious groups “special rights” at the expense of free speech and intellectual inquiry.

The so-called “defamation of religions” U.N. resolutions, proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, would create a “global blasphemy law,” the chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom warned on Wednesday.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized on Monday an attempt by Islamic countries to prohibit defamation of religions, saying such policies would restrict free speech.

A ministry working with persecuted Christians launched a campaign Tuesday against a U.N. resolution (The Defamation of Religions Resolution) that many human rights groups say can be manipulated to oppress Christian minorities living in Muslim-majority countries.

This is truly despicable and cowardly behaviour. Shame on the perpetrator!

The Saint Barnabas’ Blog

Please pray for Fr Waller and the parish of Saint Saviour’s Walthamstow, who woke up to discover church notice boards vandalised. Furthermore Fr David had a threatening message left on his ansaphone- warning him of violence if his church should opt for the Roman option. Clearly this is criminal behaviour and a matter for the police- but what sort of person stoops to this level in order to hurt another? We should pray for this person as they are clearly lost and full of hatred.

This is the sort of sectarian nastiness one might have (sadly) expected at the height of troubles in N. Ireland but within the Diocese of Chelmsford? It comes as a stark warning to everyone -be careful what emotions you sow! Regardless of our theological views and differences we must work together in love, showing the world how we Christians can handle difference with generosity and integrity.

Read Entire Blog Post

Hey, why are the government sponsoring billboards for the religious belief in climate change, why aren’t the humanists and secularists up in arms about this?

Bloomberg

Nov. 23 (Bloomberg) — The British government will today begin a poster campaign warning of the dangers of climate change, showing how the seasons could soon look different as a result of global warming.

Billboards across 900 locations in the U.K. will “offer a stark message for any climate change skeptics” and are timed to precede a United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen next month, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said in a statement.

A poll by YouGov Plc on Oct. 6-7 found that more than half the people questioned don’t believe climate change will affect them and only about 18 percent think climate change will take effect during their children’s lifetime, the department said.

OK, that was a little Tongue-in-cheek, but on a more serious note, why is the government pumping money into these billboards? We are smack in the middle of the Academic ClimateGate scandal and even Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

Even the government controlled BBC is having to report (sorry should have said ‘spin’) on these devastating climate change revelations.

How embarrassing, but even more embarrassing is when the Church jumps on the man-made climate change alarmist propaganda bandwagon.

Jennifer Roback Morse – MercatorNet

Spin cycle: the lesbian parenting story that wasn’t – How an event about building character in children became headline advocacy for gays.

A headline squawking “Lesbian parents better at raising children” flew around the English-speaking world last week, having been released by the Times of London. No doubt this thrilled the gay lobby, while alarming traditionalists of all parties. But the real story here is not about lesbians. The real story is the media’s severe case of Gay Infatuation Syndrome: anything that makes gays look good is newsworthy. This seriously misleading headline should caution readers to make a habit of looking behind the headlines. There may be, as in this case, nothing there.

The first indication of a mismatch between the headline and the story is that it cites no new study or research showing that lesbian parents are “better”. Here is the part of the report on which the headline is based:

“Speaking at the launch at the think tank Demos of a report on the influence of character on life, Scott said: “Lesbians make better parents than a man and a woman.”

“His arguments are supported by experts who have found, over years of research, that children brought up by female couples are more aspirational and more confident in championing social justice. They show no more tendencies towards homosexuality than the offspring of heterosexual parents.”

Whoa! Hold on here. Since when is being “aspirational” and “confident in championing social justice” the high-water mark of good parenting? But I digress. The story cites neither specific “experts” nor any of the research supposedly produced over many years. There is no new research, just a recycling of the same old stuff. There is, quite literally, nothing there.

The expert quoted is Dr. Stephen Scott, director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners. I didn’t know what a “parenting practitioner” was or why anyone should need an academy for it, so I looked it up. It turns out that the NAPP was established by an agency of the British government:

“The National Academy for Parenting Practitioners was set up in 2007 by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to provide the parenting workforce with objective evidence based support in order to improve the services offered to parents in England.”

The parenting workforce? Have we really lost the ability to see the point of personal relationships and kinship? Do we have to redefine the care that parents naturally give their children as a special sector of the labor market, bolstering it with “objective evidence”?

Well, yes, if you belong to the British ruling class and you no longer have any idea what it is that parents naturally do for their children. Professionalism, however, can apparently work miracles, as NAPP’s “vision” tells us:

“Our vision is that all parents who need it should be able to access quality support from trained practitioners capable of helping them to raise their children to be happy, healthy, safe, ready to learn and to make a positive contribution and achieve economic wellbeing.”

This is scarcely even a charity designed to help real flesh and blood families. Instead of mothers learning from their mothers, or neighbours helping neighbours, the British government has established a corporatist institution, to professionalize child care.

And what was the occasion for Dr. Scott’s outburst of enthusiasm for father-absent households? As near as I can tell, it was a meeting of a group called Demos, which was highlighting its new publication, Building Character. The point of this publication was to analyze the impact of different parenting styles on the children’s character development. It seems to be a perfectly sensible report, well worthy of discussion, as it emphasizes that even parents of modest means can learn the skills they need to better care for their children.

However, the report had the usual conservative fly in the progressive ointment: children of divorced or step-parents don’t do as well. According to the Independent, another paper presented at the symposium showed they must struggle much harder to develop “skills” such as such as empathy, self-control and application:

“In a blow to the huge numbers of parents who are divorced or remarried, the study also found that children with married parents were twice as likely to develop good skills as those living with stepfamilies or single parents.”

Could this have been the stimulus for Dr. Scott’s family diversity boosterism? I can hardly believe they spent all day talking about lesbian parenting skills. The poor dears weren’t even mentioned in the report: there simply weren’t enough such couples in the sample to study.

So here are the facts: no new data on lesbian parenting, but new data further demonstrating the superiority of married parents. At a technocratic gab-fest about upskilling the “parenting workforce” one guy spouts his opinion about lesbian parents. And the headline reading “Lesbian parents better at raising children” goes viral worldwide.

The conference and report that were the ostensible subjects of the article had nothing — repeat, nothing — to do with lesbians, as parents or anything else. A reporter apparently decided to make a story out of an off-hand comment.

This lame headline episode illustrates why so many ordinary people hold the mainstream media in contempt. They view the MSM as carnival barkers for the sexual revolution. Look behind the headlines: there may be less there than meets the eye.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, a project of the National Organization for Marriage.

I’ve seen this new Conservative poster on several blogs this morning and I can’t resist it either. Kudos where kudos is due, this is a masterclass.