judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the tag “christianity”

Templeton Project: Apology in the New Testament III

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “Apology in the New Testament III.”

See also:

_______________

The previous article ended with a quotation from First Peter.  “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?  But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame, For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.”  (I Peter 3: 13-17 ESV)

Let’s summarize the letter of which this extended passage is a part.  Peter writes to the “elect exiles in the dispersion,” a specific reference to Christians’ living in several Roman provinces of what is today the country of Turkey.  By God’s mercy in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we are “born again to a living hope,” fulfilled in end time salvation. Though the recipients have been through various trials, they are to rejoice in their salvation.  Persecution is always a possibility and may have been experienced by the recipients of the letter..

Peter calls on Christians in their exile, not to be conformed to the passions, but to be holy as God is holy.  The exiles are to remember that they were redeemed by the precious blood of Christ.  The apostle continues with admonition to put away deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander and yearn for the “pure spiritual milk.”

Peter reminds the exiles that they are a spiritual house, a royal priesthood, a chosen race, a holy nation that “proclaim the excellencies” of God who called them out of darkness into his light.  They are to avoid the passions of the flesh.  Among the Gentiles they are to be honorable in their conduct.  Though non-believers speak of them as evildoers, the result will be that on the day of God’s visitation, they will glorify God.

Peter continues by exhorting them to submit to human authority, respecting the emperor and the governors sent by him.  Their doing good will silence foolish people.  It is of no benefit to be punished for doing evil and endure, rather it is good in God’s sight to endure for suffering for the good.

Christ is the example of suffering for Christians to follow.  He suffered, though He committed no sin, on the cross so that we may “die to sin and live to righteousness.”

Peter continues with a section on the proper conduct of husbands and wives and servants, followed by an admonition to the churches to “unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.” The exiles are not to respond to evil with evil but respond with blessing.   After some relevant quotes from the Old Testament, Peter writes the words that were quoted at the beginning of this article.  In our defense of the faith, Christians are to be gentle and respectful.

It is better to suffer for good than evil.  Christ suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous.

Christians are to live for the will of God, not for evil passions.  The end is approaching for which we are to prepare.  He exhorts the recipients of the letter to live self-controlled lives and love one another in the the community.

Peter returns to the theme of the trial of the exiles.   They are not to be surprised that trials are happening.  They should rejoice in the sharing of Christ’s sufferings as they will rejoice when Christ returns and are to glorify God in their suffering.  Judgment begins in the household of God and then among those who do not believe the Gospel.  The elders are instucted on how to lead the flock and the young are reminded of their proper duty.

The exiles suffer now but will inherit the eternal glory of Christ.  Finally the apostle calls the exiles to stand firm in their belief.

Chrisitans are to suffer for the good, never for the evil.  Our conduct is to be good as a witness to others.  This includes a respectful and gentle way of speaking and conducting themselves with those who ask for an account of their  faith.  The appropriate way to present a defense of the faith is very important as is its content.

What can we learn from theis text?

1. The Christian community consists of elect exiles in this world and also is a holy nation and royal priesthood. Christians are elect exiles, because of God’s choosing us as His people in a world hostile to the Gospel.  Our true home is heaven, an imperishable inheritance.

2.  The churches and the people in them have gone through and will continue to go through various trials, not because we are evildoers, but because of doing good.  Persecution is always a possibility for Christians.

3.  We are not to conform to the passions, but remember that we are a holy nation.  Our lives should be one of self-control.

4.  Christ, who suffered for our salvation, is the model for our own suffering.

5.  To respond to others with an apology, or defense, is a witness to Christ.

6.  Our defense should be with gentleness and respect, no matter how the challenger behaves.

7.  We are to rejoice in our trials.

(All quotations from the Bible are from the English Standard Version)

Michael G. Tavella

March 18, 2019

The Day of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, 386

Templeton Project: Apology in the New Testament II

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “Apology in the New Testament II.”

See also:

_______________

The word, defense or apology, is found twice at the beginning of Paul’s letter to the Philippians. The letter starts out with mention of sender and recipients, followed by a greeting.  Paul continues by giving thanks for the Philippian Christian community. He speaks of his defense and confirmation of the Gospel in partnership with the Philippians.  Paul is in prison when he writes this letter. A little bit later in the thanksgiving, Paul mentions that his imprisonment has served to advance the Word.  Furthermore, the Philippians have become bolder to share the Word as result of Paul’s situation and example.  He emphasizes that he finds himself in prison for the purpose of defending the Gospel.

The defense of the Gospel involves its proclamation so that others may believe.  To defend the Gospel is to witness to Christ.  When Christians are witnessing, they are proclaiming Christ so that people may believe.  To defend the Gospel is not a defensive measure in response to hostility, though hostility may be the case, but is an opportunity to share its power and truth boldly and humbly.  An apology is not an “I’m sorry,” the primary use of the word in English, but is a “Let me tell you about Jesus Christ and why He is the truth.”  Challenges to this witness will require answering questions and clearing up misunderstandings.  The Christian response should be respectful of the antagonist, rather than coarse, crass, and caustic.  The disciple is called to conduct oneself courteously both  in word and action without a deference that compromises the sharing of God’s powerful Word. Saint Peter puts itwell:  “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?  But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense (mine) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,  having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” ( I Peter 3: 14-17 ESV)

Michael G. Tavella

Templeton Project: The Biblical Foundation–Apology

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway (see here) and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “The Biblical Foundation – Apology.”

See also:

___________________

In English the word apology most often means an expression of regret or sorrow for one’s lapse in behavior in word or action; but, it can also be used according to its meaning in ancient Greek, which is a defense of a point of view, opinion, idea, philosophy, religious belief, etc. In the New Testament the word is used in this latter sense in both its nominal and verbal forms.

Apology is used most often in Luke-Acts and Paul.  The verbal form appears two times in Luke, six times in the Book of Acts, and once in Romans and 2 Corinthians.  In Luke 12: 11 Jesus counsels the disciples, “And when they bring you before synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not be anxious about how you defend yourself or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” (Luke 12: 11-12 ESV) The parallel passage in Matthew does not utilize the verb apologeomai, defend oneself, as does Luke.  The same is true when comparing Luke 21: 14 with parallels in Matthew and Mark.  Here again, only Luke employs the verbal form of apology while Matthew and Mark use a verb meaning to speak.

Luke 12: 11 pertains to the witness of the disciples at a time of persecution.  The Greek verb, apologeomai, in the English Standard Version of Luke 21: 14 is translated “to answer.”  The whole verse reads, “Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict.”  (Luke 21: 14 ESV) In persecution the disciple has the opportnity to witness to the Gospel.  Both passages in Luke where apologeomai is used refer to persecution and martyrdom of Jesus’ disciples. The meaning in both contexts is the same.  The Christian replies to the charges of the opponent and, at the same time, testifies to the Gospel of Christ.

In Acts the verb is used six times.  Paul makes his defense before Felix in Acts 24; before Festus in Acs 25; and before Agrippa in Acs 26.

Luke does not use the noun apologia but Acts, written by Luke, does.  In Acts the word is used two times toward the end of the book, as is the case with the verbs.  The word refers to Paul’s defense of his ministry in public.  In Acts 22 Paul must defend himself against the Jews’ false accusation that he was teaching against the Law and bringing Gentiles into the Temple. In Acts 25 Paul makes his case before Festus, Agrippa, and Bernice.

In Acts 22 Paul gives an account of his conversion. Paul’s defense also served as opportunities to witness to Christ.  He insisted that he was not preaching against His people, the Law, or the government.  In Acts 26 Paul gives yet another account of his conversion.

Both verb and noun refer to Paul’s defense in various contexts that were of a juridical nature.  He defends himself against false charges, gives account of his conversion, and witnesses to Christ.  The crowd opposed to the Apostle interpreted his defense with loud threats aginst his person.  The government officials listem more sympathetically.

The next article will consider Paul’s use of apology in Philippians and then in I Peter, its only use outside of Luke-Acts and the Pauline correspondence.

Templeton Project: Grounds for the Project

Back in October 2015 I wrote about the inauguration of the Abington Templeton Foundation (see here).  The project is now underway and I will be posting our writing here.

Check out the latest piece entitled “Grounds for the Project.”

___________________

The environment in America for debate on controversial subjects is replete with incivility, exemplified by politicians and news media. As a result, greater understanding on important matters has been lost in the turmoil.  No less has dialogue concerning topics of religion, especially those pertaining to Christianity, been caught in a Charybdis that inevitably leads to the disappearance and destruction of an environment in which the hearers could learn more about the subject at hand and the issues at stake.

This project, funded by the John Templeton Foundation, seeks to promote greater understanding and civility among Christians and atheists as they dialogue on matters pertaining to the Christian faith. The blog and response will test our ability to foster mutual respect on a subject that delves deeply into what is most important to human beings, the meaning of our lives in this world. It is not assumed that this is the first attempt to do this. But, it is a fresh undertaking that may or may not result in new insights.  If it fails in this,  it is hoped that it will at least provide a forum for the respectful exchange of views.  A small guide book for those in dialogue or seeking it will be produced as a result of this blog. Its primary purpose is to advise Christians.  But, atheists intent on positive dialogue will hopefully find it beneficial.

The Scriptural basis for this endeavor is found in I Peter:  “Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?  But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed.  Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.” (I Peter 3: 13-17 ESV)

Here are the specific goals of the project, susceptible to revision.

We will endeavor

1. to foster greater civility and understanding on matters pertaining to the Christian faith and atheism.

2. to avoid contempt and, at all times, to show respect for one another.

3. to acknowledge our lapses of civility and to pledge to do better.

4. to reduce misunderstandings that come from lack of knowledge of the subjects of religion and atheism and to clarify what participants believe.

5. to commit to research on matters we know little about.

6. to explore religious and non-religious views of the world.

7. to emphasize the importance of accurate historical, scientific (natural science), philosophical and theological knowledge.

8. to commit ourselves to promoting understanding and civility among friends and family.

9.  to witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

A committee has been formed to develop the resources to meet the above goals.  You will be hearing from them on this blog.

By: The Rev. Dr. Michael G. Tavella

Kanye and Collins: Shredded by Intersectionality

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; I recently came across one in Splice Today by my old philosophy professor Dr. Crispin Sartwell from back in my Penn State days which, I thought, was pretty insightful. Be edified.

________________

A lot of people who assert that Kanye West has gone mad are also angry at him, which lands him in the worst of all possible worlds: held not to be responsible for his actions by the very same people who are blaming him. I’ve been there, brother. But Kanye is being ripped apart by forces larger than insomnia. He’s like the Jesus of intersectionality, crucified for our sins on the cross of fallacious reasoning. The problem isn’t that Kanye makes no sense—though he doesn’t—it’s that everyone talking about Kanye make no sense either. The Sufferings of Kanye have been sent to us as a message from God: if you don’t generate a coherent way of thinking about race, gender, and politics, I’m going to come over and smack you.

Sen. Susan Collins has been tacked to the same wretched cross, which defines a four-box grid: male, female, minority, white. That’s the menu from which we each get to pick who we are, because it’s as many identities as political consultants can keep in their heads simultaneously.

People find a lot of ways to say “race traitor” and “gender traitor” without saying it, and now Kanye knows what it feels like to be a wigger in the whitebread suburbs, and Collins what it’s like to be a drag queen. But though Kanye betrayed his politically-unanimous race—because Donald Trump is a racist—he kept faith with his politically-unanimous gender, because Trump’s also a sexist. The people most outraged by Kanye are also those (Michael Eric Dyson, for example) who believe that a progressive future is demographically inevitable, because of a growing coalition of women and minorities. But that inspiring coalition includes one half of Kanye West (and for that matter one half of Dyson and Collins) and excludes the other.

The American political spectrum is largely collapsing into demographics: it’s not defined by what you believe, but skin-tone and gonads, and both sides are engaged in internal gender cleansing. This is one of the things you identitarians had better talk about when you talk about “intersectionality”: people like Kanye and Collins—black men and white women—have intersectional identities alright, identities that land different bits of themselves on different sides of the political spectrum. No wonder they seem a bit bewildered.

On this way of thinking, the inmost identity of each of us is a simple matrix of group memberships. But only half of Kanye’s identity is invited to the progressive party. The minority member should be piping up while the man quiets down and listens to the people he’s oppressed. That’s how you get the Kanye we saw in the Oval, or the Collins we saw address the Senate: several people at once or no one at all. Identity politics as currently conceived confronts us all with a fateful question: is Kanye blacker than he is male, or more male than he is black? Perhaps some sort of DNA test could help with this?

What’s remarkable is that Kanye is conscious of this, and he explains his own support for Trump directly as a matter of gender.

West: “You know, they tried to scare me to not wear this hat—my own friends. But this hat, it gives me—it gives me power, in a way. You know, my dad and my mom separated, so I didn’t have a lot of male energy in my home. And also, I’m married to a family that—(laughs)—you know, not a lot of male energy going on. It’s beautiful, though. But there’s times where, you know, there’s something about—you know, I love Hillary. I love everyone, right? But the campaign ‘I’m with her’ just didn’t make me feel, as a guy, that didn’t get to see my dad all the time—like a guy that could play catch with his son. It was something about when I put this hat on, it made me feel like Superman. You made a Superman. That was my—that’s my favorite superhero. And you made a Superman cape.”

Then on to the “hero’s journey” and “dragon energy”: straight out of the “men’s movement” circa 1986.

The gender gap right now is running at an all-time high of around 30 percent. It’s going to be something when we have pure gender parties, or straight-up politics of the playground: boys against girls. But then, if the same party that represents all the men also represents all the white people, and the same party that represents all the women represents all the members of racial minority groups, what are Kanye or Collins to do?

Our politics appears to be breaking down into two race/gender coalitions, which is a remarkable development, among other things, for how disgusting it is. But the good part is that the politics it describes is impossible, because it not only separates us from one another, but separates many of us from ourselves. It’s evil, but it’s also silly, so I suppose we just have to watch it play out.

I’d expect no wave in the midterm elections; if you ran a computer model on this incoherent way of understanding the electorate, it would show a stalemate in perpetuity. The greater the proportion of minorities, of course, the greater the proportion of minority men, who may well respond to dragon energy and hero’s journeys. More women in the Senate may well mean more white women in the Senate.

So while we may bemoan the incoherence of identity politics as it emerges from both sides now, we can celebrate that incoherence too, for even if identity politics wins, it loses.

This article can be found here.

 

What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia

Over the past 12 months, three scholars—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable: By the time they took their experiment public late on Tuesday, seven of their articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals. Seven more were still going through various stages of the review process. Only six had been rejected.

In the late 1990s, Alan Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, began a soon-to-be-infamous article by setting out some of his core beliefs:

that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in “eternal” physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the “objective” procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

Sokal went on to “disprove” his credo in fashionable jargon. “Feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of ‘objectivity,’” he claimed. “It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ‘reality,’ no less than social ‘reality,’ is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.”

Next, Sokal sent off this jabber to Social Text, a peer-reviewed academic journal that was, at the time, a leading intellectual forum for famous scholars including Edward Said, Oskar Negt, Nancy Fraser, Étienne Balibar, and Jacques Rancière. It was published.In the eyes of his supporters, what came to be known as the Sokal Hoax seemed to prove the most damning charges that critics of postmodernism had long leveled against it. Postmodern discourse is so meaningless, they claimed, that not even “experts” can distinguish between people who make sincere claims and those who compose deliberate gibberish.

In the months after Sokal went public, Social Text was much ridiculed. But its influence—and that of the larger “deconstructivist” mode of inquiry it propagated—continued to grow. Indeed, many academic departments that devote themselves to the study of particular ethnic, religious, and sexual groups are deeply inflected by some of Social Text’s core beliefs, including the radical subjectivity of knowledge.

That’s why Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghossian set out to rerun the original hoax, only on a much larger scale. Call it Sokal Squared.

Generally speaking, the journals that fell for Sokal Squared publish respected scholars from respected programs. For example, Gender, Place and Culture, which accepted one of the hoax papers, has in the past months published work from professors at UCLA, Temple, Penn State, Trinity College Dublin, the University of Manchester, and Berlin’s Humboldt University, among many others.

The sheer craziness of the papers the authors concocted makes this fact all the more shocking. One of their papers reads like a straightforward riff on the Sokal Hoax. Dismissing “western astronomy” as sexist and imperialist, it makes a case for physics departments to study feminist astrology—or practice interpretative dance—instead:

Other means superior to the natural sciences exist to extract alternative knowledges about stars and enriching astronomy, including ethnography and other social science methodologies, careful examination of the intersection of extant astrologies from around the globe, incorporation of mythological narratives and modern feminist analysis of them, feminist interpretative dance (especially with regard to the movements of the stars and their astrological significance), and direct application of feminist and postcolonial discourses concerning alternative knowledges and cultural narratives.

The paper that was published in Gender, Place and Culture seems downright silly. “Human Reaction to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon” claims to be based on in situ observation of canine rape culture in a Portland dog park. “Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender?” the paper asks.

By drawing upon empirical studies of psychological harms of objectification, especially through depersonalization, and exploring severel veins of theoretical literature on nonphysical forms of sexual violence, this articles seeks to situate non-concensual male autoerotic fantasizing about women as a form of metasexual violence that depersonalizes her, injures her being on an affective level, contributes to consequent harms of objectification and rape culture, and can appropriate her identity for the purpose of male sexual gratification.

Sokal Squared doesn’t just expose the low standards of the journals that publish this kind of dreck, though. It also demonstrates the extent to which many of them are willing to license discrimination if it serves ostensibly progressive goals. This tendency becomes most evident in an article that advocates extreme measures to redress the “privilege” of white students. Exhorting college professors to enact forms of “experiential reparations,” the paper suggests telling privileged students to stay silent, or even binding them to the floor in chains. If students protest, educators are told to

take considerable care not to validate privilege, sympathize with, or reinforce it and in so doing, recenter the needs of privileged groups at the expense of marginalized ones. The reactionary verbal protestations of those who oppose the progressive stack are verbal behaviors and defensive mechanisms that mask the fragility inherent to those inculcated in privilege.

Like just about everything else in this depressing national moment, Sokal Squared is already being used as ammunition in the great American culture war. Many conservatives who are deeply hostile to the science of climate change, and who dismiss out of hand the studies that attest to deep injustices in our society, are using Sokol Squared to smear all academics as biased culture warriors. The Federalist, a right-wing news and commentary site, went so far as to spread the apparent ideological bias of a few journals in one particular corner of academia to most professors, the mainstream media, and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

These attacks are empirically incorrect and intellectually dishonest. There are many fields of academia that have absolutely no patience for nonsense. While the hoaxers did manage to place articles in some of the most influential academic journals in the cluster of fields that focus on dealing with issues of race, gender, and identity, they have not penetrated the leading journals of more traditional disciplines. As a number of academics pointed out on Twitter, for example, all of the papers submitted to sociology journals were rejected. For now, it remains unlikely that the American Sociological Review or the American Political Science Review would have fallen for anything resembling “Our Struggle Is My Struggle,” a paper modeled on the infamous book with a similar title.

That too is intellectually dishonest. For one, Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian describe themselves as left-leaning liberals. For another, it is nonsensical to insist that nonsense scholarship doesn’t matter because you don’t like the motives of the people who exposed it, or because some other forms of scholarship may also contain nonsense. If certain fields of study cannot reliably differentiate between real scholarship and noxious bloviating, they become deeply suspect. And if they are so invested in overcoming injustice that they are willing to embrace rank cruelty as long as it is presented in the right kind of progressive jargon, they are worsening the problems they purport to address.It would, then, be all too easy to draw the wrong inferences from Sokal Squared. The lesson is neither that all fields of academia should be mistrusted nor that the study of race, gender, or sexuality is unimportant. As Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghossian point out, their experiment would be far less worrisome if these fields of study didn’t have such great relevance.

But if we are to be serious about remedying discrimination, racism, and sexism, we can’t ignore the uncomfortable truth these hoaxers have revealed: Some academic emperors—the ones who supposedly have the most to say about these crucial topics—have no clothes.

By Yascha Mounk and published in The Atlantic on October 5, 2018 and can be found here.

 

 

How My Husband’s Porn Fantasy Obsession Led Him To Be Disgusted With My Body

Six years ago, when I first met Tim*, everything seemed to be perfect. We clicked immediately and were married within a year of meeting. It seemed fast, but we loved all the same things, could talk about anything, and worked in similar jobs. I really thought I’d found my soul mate.

But six years later, last November, we split and Tim moved out. I filed for divorce in January, and it was official by June.

Everyone wanted to know why: Why weren’t we trying counseling first? Why didn’t we tell anyone we were having problems? Why couldn’t we work it out for our son? And, of course, why did we get divorced?

I can tell you in one word: porn.

It sounds ridiculous, but it’s the truth. The porn wasn’t just a part of some bigger problem, it was the problem.

I never took issue with porn, before…

I’ve never had a problem with porn or with people looking at it in their free time. When we were dating, Tim told me he started looking at it, like most boys, in his young teens. I didn’t worry too much about it, chalking it up to just a thing guys do. But then our sex life started to suffer. To be honest, it was never amazing. I thought that was from the stress of working, living with roommates, and planning a wedding, and figured once we settled down we’d work it out. Not so much. Sex always seemed like a lot more work for Tim than it should be, and the longer we were married, the less sex we were having.

At first, I wondered if Tim was suffering from depression, had a low libido, or might even be gay (even though he’d never shown any interest in men). But then I saw his open laptop one evening and read all the tabs he had open, and realized that he had an enormous sexual appetite—just not for me.

Instead of coming to bed with me, he was choosing to stay downstairs every evening with his laptop, watching porn. We were down to having sex maybe once every three months. And it definitely wasn’t good sex. So not wanting to be a nun in my own marriage, I finally confronted Tim about what I had found.

He couldn’t get aroused with me because I’m real

I told him it wasn’t the porn itself I was worried about, but that he preferred it to me, a living, breathing woman. Plus, we had talked about wanting to try getting pregnant, and that just wasn’t going to happen having sex every three months. Tim agreed it was an issue and then he said something that really shocked me: he was having a hard time being physically aroused by me.

I was young and kept myself healthy. I waxed, I wore deodorant, I dressed well. It didn’t make any sense! Then he told me that my body disgusted him. He said it didn’t react the way he thought it should, that I made weird noises, and that my bodily fluids grossed him out. He also mentioned that he wished I looked more like the porn stars, with bigger breasts, etc. Then he said he just couldn’t get hard, plain and simple, when he was with me.

It was the most devastating conversation of my life and I still cry when I think about it. Can you imagine having your body picked apart piece by piece like that and being told you’re not good enough? That the natural way your body responds to sex is wrong?

Still, Tim wanted to try to make our relationship work and because the rest of our life together was so good, I was willing to go along with that if he went to counseling. Things seemed to be getting better—we were having more sex—but I started to notice something.

Tim always wanted to reenact things he’d watched while asking me to dress or wax or talk like his favorite performers. And a lot of the things he wanted to try, positions or toys that seemed to work so well in porn, involved rough, violent sex that treated women in a very degrading way. Even then, it still took a lot of effort for him to climax. There was nothing fun about that sex for me, nothing. It was getting to the point that it was actually traumatic for me.

All this seemed to make him more sure that something was wrong with me, and I was starting to believe he might be right. My self-esteem was destroyed; I hated my body. But one good thing did come from it: I got pregnant.

The downward spiral, and the lies

Pregnancy was a massive turn-off for Tim, so we took a nine-month hiatus from sex. And I was okay with that. The rest of our life was good, our son was amazing, so I kind of gave up caring about sex for about two years. I knew he was downstairs with his laptop again, but I didn’t want to deal with that. It wasn’t perfect, but it was okay. Plus, Tim was still attending weekly sessions with the therapist.

Eventually, though, I decided I couldn’t live without sex for the rest of my life. So I made an attempt to initiate sex one night after our son was asleep, only to discover that Tim had been lying about seeing the therapist and he was more dependent on porn than ever. I felt so angry and betrayed. I packed up my things and the baby and went to stay with a relative.

A week later, Tim called, saying he was sorry, and asked to meet at a hotel to try and “work on things.”

“No laptop?” I asked.

“No laptop,” he promised.

So I left my son with a sitter, dressed up, and met Tim at the bar in the lobby. He said he wanted me back and was willing to get treatment for his porn addiction—for real this time. He listed all the good things we had together and I began to remember why I fell in love with him in the first place. After a few drinks, we headed up to the room. But as soon as I started trying to kiss him, he involuntarily shuddered and turned away.

I knew then it wasn’t ever going to work.

As a real woman, I didn’t fit into his porn perfection

Instead of learning to see me as a woman, he was still trying to fit me into his porn fantasies. But I wasn’t going to compromise my body and my wants anymore for his. I was done. I’d spent years being compared to completely unrealistic women, and I just couldn’t take it anymore.

I haven’t told many people the real reason for our split. I’m worried they’ll think I’m being dramatic or overreacting. And there’s a lot of shame. Part of me still thinks I did something wrong, that if I could have just been that fantasy for him, we’d still be together. It’s humiliating.

I’m not ready to talk about it with other women yet, but I do wonder how many other wives like me are out there, suffering and wondering how they’ll ever measure up to the pornographic ideal. I think there are a lot more of us than anyone knows.

J.

*Names and identifying details have been changed

Betrayal isn’t uncommon, it’s the norm

There are definitely a lot more of these stories than anyone knows, and far too many. We receive countless emails and direct messages from significant others who have been betrayed by their partner’s porn habit. Unfortunately, this woman’s story is as common as it is heartbreaking.

Porn reshapes expectations about sex and attraction by presenting an unrealistic picture. In porn, men and women always look their best. They are forever young, surgically enhanced, airbrushed, and Photoshopped to perfection.  So it’s not hard to see why, according to a national poll, six out of seven women believe that porn has changed men’s expectations of how women should look.

As writer Naomi Wolf points out, “Today real naked women are just bad porn.”

While porn is something that both men and women struggle with, it seems that a large number of the messages we get are from girlfriends, wives, and female partners. We summed up the damaging effects of porn in a letter we wrote and released on social media:

Two of the most respected pornography researchers, Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillman at the University of Alabama, studied the effects of porn and media for more than 30 years. They found that consuming pornography makes many individuals less satisfied with their own partners’ physical appearance, sexual performance, sexual curiosity, and affection.  They also found that, over time, many porn users grow more callous toward females in general, less likely to value monogamy and marriage, and more likely to develop distorted perceptions of sexuality. Other researchers have confirmed those results and added that porn consumers tend to be significantly less intimate with their partners, less committed in their relationships, less satisfied with their romantic and sex lives, and more likely to cheat on their partners.

In reality, there’s nothing sexier than authentic love built on trust, mutuality, and honesty. That’s what we’re fighting for.

Originally published on Fight the New Drug on September 12, 2018 and can be found here.

 

Divorce is hard enough on children — why are our courts making it worse?

Divorce is difficult for children. It disrupts their lives in ways they are often ill-equipped to handle. It can have life-long adverse effects.

The good news is that the long term harms of divorce on children can be largely avoided if adults properly handle post-divorce parenting. And a compelling and growing body of scientific research tells us how to deal with parental separation to minimize the damage done to children.

National Parents Organization has just completed a ground-breaking study—the first of its kind—of the local default parenting time guidelines of all 88 of Ohio’s county courts of common pleas. These guidelines, required by state law, indicate default parenting time schedules and significantly shape the actual parenting patterns of divorced parents.

The results are illuminating, and depressing!

The best research on the well-being of children when parents live apart shows that children typically do best when they enjoy substantially equal time in the care of each of their parents. And this is true for infants and toddlers as well as for older children; and it’s true even when the parents have a high level of (non-violent) conflict. On all measures of child well-being, children raised in shared physical custody score about as well as children raised in an intact family; and they do much better than children raised in sole-custody situations. (Some of this research is listed on the NPO website.)

The Ohio parenting time guidelines of most counties are not only sadly behind the times, they lead to results that are capricious and bizarre.

One would think, then, that court rules, which are supposed to be guided by a “best interest of the child” principle, would be encouraging shared physical custody. Unfortunately, most of them are not; instead, steeped in a 1950s mindset, they are imposing rules that harm children.

Of Ohio’s 88 counties, 64 have parenting time guidelines that allow children to spend only two overnights and 60 hours or fewer in a two-week period with one of their fit parents. Some of these have schedules that prevent the children from being in the care of one of their parents for 12 consecutive days during that two-week period.

None of these counties have parenting guidelines that allow the children to be in the care of their non-residential parent on a school night. What that means is that this parent, now demoted to a second-class status, is never charged with ensuring that the children do their homework, get ready for school, and so forth. This takes one fit parent out of a true parent-child role at a time when it is more important than ever for children to be reassured that both parents are fully engaged in their lives—that both parents are doing the hands-on, day-to-day tasks of raising them.

There were bright spots, too, but only a few. Just three Ohio counties have adopted guidelines that provide children with equal, or almost equal, time with each of their fit parents.

The Ohio parenting time guidelines of most counties are not only sadly behind the times, they lead to results that are capricious and bizarre. For example, children whose parents divorce in Sandyville, Ohio (Tuscarawas County) will presumptively be in the care of each of their parents for seven overnights and 168 hours in a two-week period. Identical children in an identical family, just 4 miles away in Magnolia, Ohio (Carroll County), will presumptively be in the care of one of their parents for just 2 overnights and 48 hours in the same period—and those children will go 12 days straight without seeing that parent.

NPO has published the results of its study of Ohio parenting time guidelines as well as an interactive map showing county-by-county results. We believe that Ohio is, unfortunately, typical of the approach that many courts across the country are taking toward parenting time guidelines: behind the times and ungrounded in research. We encourage those who are concerned about the effects of divorce on children to call for changes that will truly promote the best interest of children.

Sadly, many courts are failing our children. Our children deserve better.

By Donald C. Hubin and originally published on FoxNews.com on September 16, 2018 and can be found here.

 

What is the Global Economy?

Whenever the topic of the local economy is brought up, economic pundits quickly remind us that we live in a “global economy,” but what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that economic activity now takes place across the globe whereas it previously did not? Does it mean that economic activity occurs much more rapidly than it previously did? Does it mean that human society has changed to the point where the economies of different countries with different cultures are irrevocably linked together? The answer to each of these questions is no.

Global economic activity has been around for over 2,000 years. The speed at which economic activity takes place is certainly faster, but this increased speed is of little to no consequence to the small and medium-sized business—in other words the overwhelming majority of businesses in the world. In what way have our economies become linked together that the failure of a small percentage of the mortgages in the USA resulted in a world-wide economic crisis, the consequences of which are still affecting us after four years? Is this link something that is irrevocable? What does it really mean when economists talk about the “global economy,” and why is it brought up as some sort of argument against supporting the local economy?

I submit that the global economy is really nothing more than the fact that the banking industry and some very large companies have expanded to the point where they don’t really have any national loyalty. Any claim to a national identity is merely a facade; they hold no national allegiance and their only interest in any country is the ability to make a profit. The large international companies make claims of nationality, their headquarters have to be somewhere, but their operations, offices and factories span the globe. Their national claims often appear to nothing more than marketing in their countries of origin. They love free trade agreements because these allow them to lay off more expensive workers in their country of origin and replace them with less expensive workers in another. This increases their profits without regard to the impact in their home country or to their employees.

The only interest the international banks seem to have in any country is the ability to give it loans. It is true that some of them perform a specific function within a country that is integral to that country. The U.S. Federal Reserve controls the currency in the United States. Likewise with the Bank of England and the European Central Bank. However, all of these institutions participate in the funding of governments all around the world. When they do not do so directly, they act through an intermediate financial institution like the International Monetary Fund. They do not function for the benefit, even in a primary sense, of their supposed country.

Because so many countries have relinquished their sovereign right to control their own currencies to these international entities, and have become so indebted to them, they have become completely dependent on them. The claims that these banks have become “too big to fail” raises the question of why they are too big to fail. If they fail, the governments dependent on them fail with them. Without the seemingly endless lines of credit to fund them, governments would have to stop making promises to provide programs they cannot afford. That is a reality no politician wants exposed to the public. If a government had its loans called, it would be shown to be bankrupt. This is why the giant banks, rather than small businesses, had to be bailed out. In the case of global corporations, the ones “too big to fail” were those with extensive ties to the government through contracts and political influence (lobbying and economic power) that they could exert.

The “global economy” is nothing more than near complete dependence of governments on the global banks and international corporations. No State is prepared to operate without them. In other words, the “Global Economy” is not about providing for the economic needs of the community, the region, or even the state. It is not about the production of wealth for the people of a country. It is mainly about finance, which is only one part of economics, and maintaining the consolidated state of wealth on which governments depend so that they can redistribute that wealth through social programs. This may explain why the efforts to solve the economic crisis are ineffective and inadequate for the average family and business. Interest rates are not kept artificially low so that people can get out of debt, but so that they can remain in debt to the banks.

This situation, regardless of how emphatically the economic pundits would like us to believe otherwise, is not a necessary one, and it is certainly no argument against advocating for the local economy. After all, why should the cost of the groceries in your local market be influenced by something that happens in another country? The reason is that we have forgotten the value of the local economy, and, consequently, have lost the local economy itself. I am not discussing city planning and budgeting, that is not “the local economy.” The local economy is the ability of the local community to be self-sufficient and to support its own productive economic activity. It is the next logical expansion of the root meaning of economy in general—which is home management.

Take a look at the typical large city of today. From where do the products needed for daily life come? How would the families and businesses cope if a disaster in another region cut off their normal supply chain for food? For example, The city of Seattle is surrounded by smaller cities (urban areas) and suburban areas which do not produce anywhere near the amount of products used by its population. Seattlites sit in chairs and work at desks made in other cities and even other countries. They drink from cups, use pens and pencils, and wear clothes that are all made somewhere else. The surrounding rural areas do not produce anywhere near the amount of food needed to support the area. Seattlites are dependent upon remote suppliers, typically large industrialized farms which are the central providers for many large cities around the country and the world. When a production problem occurs on one of these giant farms, the ramifications are wide-spread. When another city experiences a disaster, the extra resources sent to assist them can create a shortage in other regions. The widespread dependence on centralized providers of basic necessities creates a situation where continued access to those necessities is more tenuous than most of us would like to believe.

Another example of widespread dependence on centralized production can be seen by a recent issue for the computer industry. Global free trade was supposed to make the market more diverse and ensure that we had a ready supply of needed items from anywhere in the world. What actually happened is that production of parts needed around the world became centralized, not just to single countries, but to single regions in those countries. The case to which I am referring is the manufacture of hard disks for computers. Flooding in one region of one country resulted in a worldwide shortage of hard disks, which impacted the ability of businesses around the world to maintain existing servers or install new ones.

In the past, a city viewed the surrounding rural community as an integral part of its life. The city provided goods and services for the rural community, and the rural community provided the basic necessities of food and other agricultural products needed by the city. In other words, each functioned as the primary market for the other and their combined economic activity established a complete, self-sufficient community in which families were able to provide for their needs and wants. Every producer and service provider in the community viewed the other members of the community as their primary customers. Rather than looking for cut-throat prices, they understood it was in their best interest to give their custom to local businesses. The best way to ensure their own economic success was to ensure the economic success of their customers. This works to make the local economy stable because most economic activity ends up being circular and self-supporting. I buy from you and you buy from me. By being each others’ customers, we keep each other in business, which allows both of us to remain each others’ customer.

Am I, by saying this, arguing against global trade, or trade in general? Not at all. The merchants in the city engaged in trade, which not only brought in desired goods from distant lands, but also opened up those distant markets to any excess production of the local community. Because most economic activity was local, it was also resilient. Not only would a problem in another community have little impact on the overall local economic situation, but the local community could more directly assist that other community. This could circumvent the need for state or federal assistance for all but the most wide-spread of disasters.

If economic activity across the country was primarily local, the overall economy of the country would be self-sufficient because the local economies would be self-sufficient. The overall economy of the country would be stable because the local economies would be stable. The overall economy of the country would be resilient because the local economies would be resilient. There would still be regional and global trade because the desire for other goods would still be present, but there would not be a dependence on those goods.

By David W. Cooney and originally published in The Distributist Review on August 18, 2012 and can be found here.

Religious baker who refused to make a wedding cake for gay couple deserves protection whether you agree with him or not

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; I recently came across one in The Philadelphia Inquirer which, I thought, was pretty insightful. Be edified.

________________

Our nation is seeing a surge of “corporate conscience,” where companies make decisions apart from their bottom line. This is good for all Americans. The New York Times recently described the growing “moral voice of corporate America” after a wave of companies, including Google, Airbnb, Uber, and PayPal, severed ties with white supremacist groups in response to the riots in Charlottesville.

This phenomenon is not new, nor is it limited to opposing white supremacy. For years,Pfizer has refused to sell some of its drugs to state prisons because the company doesn’t want them used in capital punishment. Chipotle refused to cater a Boy Scouts’ Jamboree because of the scouts’ then-policy about gay scout leaders. A gay coffee shop ownerrecently refused to serve a group of pro-life activists, ejecting them from his store. These business owners made moral choices about what they’re going to support.

A similar moral choice is at the heart of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case currently before the Supreme Court. The store’s owner, Jack Phillips, is a baker who is willing to sell any items off-the-shelf in his store to anyone, no questions asked. All he is asking is not to be compelled to use his artistic talent to create a custom-designed cake celebrating an event contrary to his deeply held beliefs. This is a standard that Phillips applies across the board. He does not create custom work that celebrates Halloween, divorce, profanity, or racism.

Phillips is not the first baker in Colorado who objected to using his talents to support something he disagreed with, but he’s the first one to be punished for it. Another Colorado bakery refused to create a Bible-themed cake that condemned homosexuality. But here, Colorado upheld these bakers’ rights, explaining that they shouldn’t be forced to create a cake they disagreed with. The state even said bakers have the right to decline to bake a cake for the Aryan Nations Church, or a cake denigrating the Koran.

This double standard was a cause of concern for multiple Supreme Court justices during the recent oral argument in Phillips’ case. Justice Alito called it “disturbing” that a baker could “refuse to create a cake with a message that is opposed to same-sex marriage,” but “when the tables are turned,” Phillips was “compelled to create a cake that expresses approval of same-sex marriage.” Justice Kennedy suggested that Colorado officials demonstrated “a significant aspect of hostility to a religion” and ironically, that the state had “been neither tolerant nor respectful of Phillips’ religious beliefs.”

Critics argue that his actions should not be entitled to protection because his denial of service was offensive. But this was not a consideration when the baker turned away the customer requesting a Bible cake, or when Chipotle refused to cater the Boy Scouts, or when the gay coffee shop owner ejected the Christian group. The Supreme Court has always said that offensive expression is still entitled to First Amendment protection. Otherwise, those who need constitutional protection the most — those with unpopular views — would be protected the least.

Phillips’ opponents also exaggerate his claim and assert that a ruling for Phillips would quickly take our country back to a Jim Crow era where large swaths of businesses are allowed to deny basic services to an entire class of Americans. But the Supreme Court has already laid out factors to protect against that type of discrimination.

When First Amendment rights must be balanced against norms of equal service, the ultimate question is whether the would-be customer can freely access the market for desired services or products. That is not an issue here. Many bakers were eager for the couple’s business; they even received offers for a free cake.

This case really boils down to the following question: Do we want to have a country where the government is allowed to pick one correct view on hot topics like marriage, and to force objecting organizations to use their talents and resources to support that position? Our Constitution prohibits that result. That’s why elsewhere, we prioritize the ability of organizations to speak out with a range of viewpoints on important moral issues. The chairman of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, said it best: “Not every business decision is an economic one … [W]e are fighting for what we love and believe in, and that is the idealism and the aspiration of America.” Schultz is right: These expressive rights are an ideal worth fighting for. That’s why the Supreme Court should uphold this principle for Phillips, too.

By Stephanie Barclay who is legal counsel at Becket, a public interest law firm that defends religious liberty for all faiths

Originally published in The Philadelphia Inquirer on January 19, 2018 and can be found here.

Post Navigation