Advertisements
Sureness, Few Seem Sure

Sureness disappears as doubt and uncertainty appear:

Sureness about answers to the important questions of life is what people used to display not so long ago. These days, however, almost everyone is either skeptical of these answers, or indifferent to the age-old, important questions of life.

The question of marriage is a good example of this. Until recently, people were sure they knew the answer to the question “What is marriage?” For generations, people have answered this question by saying: “Marriage is a legal union of one man and one woman.” Now, some people not only question this answer, but many reject it as a misleading reply to the question.

Family life is another area in which many doubt and question the accepted standard and practice. Many now doubt the notion that the traditional family represents the only structural standard there is for the family unit. They argue that we should consider two adults of the same gender and children living together as a family.

We can also find examples of this prevailing doubt in people’s view of, and attitude toward God and religion. As people doubt and question the importance or even the existence of God, moral uncertainty and decline creep in. While this happens, people discard moral principles and values and think and behave at a lower standard than is acceptable.

A source of hope is there to help us:

We can suffer in several ways because of failing to act correctly due to our doubt and uncertainty.

Is there, however, a source of knowledge and instruction that can help us remove doubt and uncertainty? Yes, the Bible is a source of factual knowledge and instruction and it can help us solve this problem. Will we, then, consult the bible and try to overcome our doubt and uncertainty?

By Edward Fagan

Edward Fagan Blog

February 22, 2018

(This is a previously published original post that I accidentally deleted from the blog. I thought it necessary that I republished it into the blog.)

Advertisements
Marriage

Marriage, what an institution

Marriage is a wonderful and very old institution. It is so old that some people have forgotten its origin. Some of us also never even defined it because we always knew what it was. Now, however, a movement is attempting to challenge it and the family.

During the 1980’s a movement started to demand a change to this institution that could have threatened it over time. That movement gained momentum and was about to succeed in its aim by the mid 1990’s. Then, in September of 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law. This bill staved off the attack until 2013 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that section 3 of the act was unconstitutional.

Section 3 of the DOMA defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It defines “spouse” as a partner in a legally recognized heterosexual marriage.

By ruling this section of the DOMA unconstitutional, the Supreme Court made same sex marital unions legal in the U.S. This ruling set a questionable precedent for marriage elsewhere.

The marital union, by its nature and functioning, is and always will be a heterosexual relationship. It is for heterosexuals only. The family also is a heterosexual only institution. It involves biological reproduction, genetics and blood connections. Its members reproduce themselves perpetually through passing on their genes.

Homosexual and lesbian relationships therefore fail to replicate the family. There is thus no such thing as a homosexual or lesbian marital relationship or family.

By Edward Fagan

Edward Fagan Blog

November 23, 2017

(This is a previously published original post that I accidentally deleted from the blog. I thought it necessary that I republished it into the blog.)

Breaking Up

Training children for living is important for several reasons. These reasons include, to develop in them good and regular habits of behaviour that: contribute to their personal wellness and circumstances, are socially graceful, and are morally just toward others and themselves.

There is also the well known need to train children and assist them in developing such habits of behaviour because their level of immaturity requires that they be correctly guided by others.

(In this essay the parent, guardian and child care-giver are seen as knowing what they intend to pass on, by way of instruction and example, to their children. They are seen also as understanding the relationship between indifference to training children, and, training children in the right way, and the consequences of these two approaches.)

The level of immaturity in children, and their need to be guided by others, fortunately, are not disadvantages. There is always a corresponding willingness and ability in most children to learn from and be guided by adults.

Early childhood is known to be the best years for development of good, as well as bad, regular habits of behaviour. Generally, bad habits of behaviour form where good habits of behaviour are not developed. It is well known what can happen when such bad habits of behaviour are left unchecked during early childhood.

In children, developing correct habits is more immediately important and more likely to be achieved than is understanding the concepts and principles behind the correct habits.

Understanding the concepts and principles behind the correct habits becomes easier as children develop toward adulthood. By late adolescence to early adulthood, these underlying concepts and principles should be understood, and the relationship between good habits of behaviour and these underlying concepts and principles should be seen.

At this stage, the connection between: right action and wrong action on one hand, and their consequences to us and others on the other hand, should also be clearly understood.

Training children draws on several areas of knowledge and practice and is concerned with correctly influencing and shaping the thinking and action of young innocent persons.

Occasionally action has to be taken to prevent undesirable thought and action from becoming firmly rooted in the minds, behaviour and character of some children.

Discipline, simple and appropriate, is used to assist in implanting correct thought and behaviour in place of undesirable thought and behaviour.

Early childhood training and development of good regular habits of behaviour contribute to the building of character and affect how we relate to ourselves, to others as individuals and members of social groups, to institutions of the sovereign state in which we live, and to God.

Parents, guardians and others who are responsible for nurturing children will determine whether or not they participate in the training of those children. They will determine also, if they decide to train those children, what methods of instruction and action they use in their attempt to successfully train those children. It is understood that parental refusal to train children is parental choosing to train them in the wrong way and toward the wrong outcome by default.

By Edward Fagan

 

Late

There are occasions when politicians from both parties in a two party system should stand up together for a common cause. One such occasion when this bipartisan approach was necessary was following the striking down of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 2013 by the Supreme Court of the United Sates (SCOTUS).

(Section 3 of DOMA is known to relate to such topics as (for federal purposes) government employees insurance benefits, social security survivors’ benefits, bankruptcy, immigration, filing of joint tax returns, scope of laws protecting (heterosexual only) families of federal officers, financial aid eligibility laws, and federal ethics laws applying to heterosexual spouses.)

It is obvious why those seeking to redefine marriage and the family would want to have SCOTUS strike down this section of DOMA.

This bipartisanship was very evident in May 1996 when The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed Congress and the Senate by large majorities. This bipartisanship thus contributed to the DOMA being signed into law in September, 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

DOMA defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also defines “spouse” as a partner in a legally recognized heterosexual marriage.

Four out of the nine SCOTUS judges voted in favour of upholding Section 3 of the DOMA. Their position is very noteworthy since clearly, the other five judges misinterpreted part or all of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

All congressmen, senators, governors and mayors, of both parties, who were in favour of upholding the DOMA should have highlighted, locally and nationally, the position of the SCOTUS judges who voted for upholding the DOMA. They then should have considered using the vote of the four SCOTUS judges who also favoured upholding the DOMA, as the rallying cry for their upholding it in practice. This would not only be a case of the ultimate bipartisanship, it would also be a valid case of the end justifying the means.

By Edward Fagan