In my earlier pieces I said that the lamestream media would bend over backwards to whitewash this whole thing, to play down the obvious motivation for all this, and to cast Muslims – yes Muslims, as the real victims here. I knew that the “I” word and the “M” word would be mostly absent. And sure enough this is exactly what transpired.

I managed to watch most of the major channels and their coverage of the event. First of all, it was often buried way down in the news broadcasts, as if it were hardly of any importance really. And when it was covered, it was a brief, matter-of-fact affair – just another murder in London.

One would be hard pressed to know it had anything to do with Islam at all. Most would not even mention this aspect. But perhaps predictably, the worst offender of all was “our” ABC. You know the one – the network which is subsidised solely by our tax dollars, and serves little worthwhile purpose for its existence, at least when it comes to accuracy and balance in news coverage.

On both its 7pm news and its 7:30 Report the way they handled this was just despicable. While a few of the other networks had the courage to play some of the video that was shot of the Muslim with the meat cleaver in his hand and blood on his hands, the ABC did a very careful job of censorship here.

That is, while one or two other networks actually played the bit where he said he was doing all this for the sake of Islam, the ABC cut out all references to Allah and so on. One of their reports actually started with his words about ‘sorry that women had to see this’. Ah, wasn’t that sweet of the killer – and so nice of the ABC to run that bit only.

Throughout the attack they were shouting “Allahu Akbar” (Arabic for “God is great”). They then demanded that the horrified onlookers film them as they ranted over his mangled body. One woman bravely did, and it is her video clip that the networks used – but some more selectively than others.

The guys with the blood and the knives said in part, “We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.” This key portion was not shown by the ABC.

Instead on the 7:30 Report we had the dhimmies at the ABC actually say this in their segment: “A man was hacked to death by two men who appear to be Muslim militants”. Appear to be?! Appear to be?! What more do you want for heaven’s sake?

Muslims chanting Islamic phrases and speaking directly about Allah, and the ABC wonders what the motivation was. Indeed, they even said that in the report as well! You still don’t know? You really have no idea of what was motivating the pair?

And then of course the rest of the report was a case of the ABC wringing its hands, worried about the poor Muslims who might be thought a bit less of after this attack. So we had the mandatory Muslim apologist appearing, telling us how worried he was about a climate of fear and so on.

Well maybe there is a good reason for a climate of fear. After all, how many dead Britons must there be before you understand that not everyone is exactly thrilled with jihad on their own soil. And of course we still await the mass marches by “moderate” Muslims protesting these killings. Strange, but we never seem to see such protests. There is always just mind-numbing silence.

But the ABC did not highlight any of these inconvenient truths. It just wanted to portray Muslims as the victims here. It is clearly time to put the ABC out of its misery. With pro-Islamic reporting like that, it is certainly time for them to go.

Much of the MSM has long ago decided that whenever Islam and the West collide, they will do all they can to side with the Muslims. They have become the useful idiots which Lenin spoke about regarding communism. The West could withstand Islam and jihad if it believed in itself, had leaders who did too, and had a media which was not pushing the Islamic line.

But none of this seems to be the case, so the West is handily destroying itself from within. And the Muslim activists are sitting back laughing as it all unfolds.

[825 words]

Of course whenever the communists came to power, the first ones to be executed were these sorts of brainless stooges. Sadly today we also have useful idiots – this time they are ignorant and naive apologists for another bloody ideology which has also made it clear that it intends to conquer the world. I refer of course to Islam. We have plenty of Western intellectuals, elites, politicians and media folks who are absolutely clueless when it comes to Islam.

They actually believe Muslims when they claim this is a religion of peace. They really think this is a religion just like any other. They really think all the violence, terrorism and bloodshed done in its name is just an aberration, an anomaly, and an exception to the rule.

Yes they are that blind. So how many more 9/11’s do we need before we wake up? How many more Bali bombings? How many more attempted beheadings like in London today? When will we wake up and realise that Islam is in fact a political ideology which has always been spread by the edge of the sword?

When will we believe the words of Muhammad? When will we believe the Koran? When will we believe the hadith? When will we take them at their word when they tell us they intend to kill us? When will we understand that they want to see the entire world under submission to Islam and sharia law?

I had no sooner finished an article on the terror attack on the streets of London when I learned about how the streets of Swedish cities are burning, also in the name of the religion of peace. For three days now Muslims have been going on a rampage there, with over a hundred cars torched.

According to one news report: “Sweden’s capital has been hit by some of its worst riots in years after youths scorched dozens of cars, attacked a police station and threw stones at rescue services in its poor immigrant suburbs for a third night running. Muslim immigrants torched a nursery and a school as rioting continued in Stockholm today….

“Groups of youth have smashed shop windows, set cars ablaze and burnt down a cultural center as the riots that started in one Stockholm suburb after a fatal police shooting spread to other low-income areas of the Swedish capital. Police spokesman Kjell Lindgren says seven people were briefly detained early Wednesday and one person was arrested on suspicion of arson of a cultural center housed in a 19th century building.”

This is how they say thanks for all the incredible hospitality and liberality of their Swedish hosts. They are handed just about everything on a silver platter, but they are still filled with rage. As accommodating as Sweden has been over the decades, most Muslims there seem unwilling and unable to fit in, but instead prefer their own isolated ghettoes.

I have written elsewhere about the massive failure multiculturalism has been in Sweden and throughout Europe and the UK. Despite the best of intentions, the decision to allow masses of people in who do not want to accept the host values and culture is always going to be a recipe for trouble.

But the worst case of the religion of peace in action comes from Saudi Arabia. It is horrific beyond belief, and of course thanks to all the useful idiots who abound in the West, you would not have heard this story in any of the mainstream media outlets.

So once again the alternative media has to cover what the MSM refuses to cover. This story, as terrible as it is, is no isolated incident. This is far too common with this faith, and it goes right back to the example and teachings of its founder.

Here is the sickening story: “A Saudi preacher who raped his five-year-old daughter and tortured her to death has been sentenced to pay ‘blood money’ to the mother after having served a short jail term, activists said on Saturday. Lama Al Ghamdi was admitted to hospital on December 25, 2011 with multiple injuries, including a crushed skull, broken ribs and left arm, extensive bruising and burns, the activists said. She died last October 22.

“Fayhan Al Gamdi, an Islamic preacher and regular guest on Muslim television networks, confessed to having used cables and a cane to inflict the injuries, the activists from the group ‘Women to Drive’ said in a statement. They said the father had doubted Lama’s virginity and had her checked up by a medic. Randa Al Kaleeb, a social worker from the hospital where Lama was admitted, said the girl’s back was broken and that she had been raped ‘everywhere’, according to the group.

According to the victim’s mother, hospital staff told her that her ‘child’s rectum had been torn open and the abuser had attempted to burn it closed.’ The activists said that the judge had ruled the prosecution could only seek ‘blood money (compensation for the next of kin under Islamic law) and the time the defendant had served in prison since Lama’s death suffices as punishment’.”

This is not a religion. It is a barbaric, hate-filled and bloody ideology which comes straight out of the pit of hell. Unless the West wakes up real soon, and rejects all the useful idiots in its midst, all this and more will simply escalate until there is no more free West.

www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/muslim-immigrants-torch-nursery-and-school-in-stockholm-rioting/

patdollard.com/2013/02/saudi-muslim-cleric-confesses-to-raping-torturing-to-death-his-5-year-old-daughter-over-virginity-concerns-gets-slap-on-the-wrist/

[947 words]

One news item puts it this way: “Clutching a bloodied meat cleaver after executing a soldier on a crowded street, he delivers a chilling message of hate. ‘You people will never be safe,’ he declares in a clear south London accent. ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’

“In broad daylight, he and an accomplice had just repeatedly stabbed and tried to behead an off-duty soldier in front of dozens of passers-by. Throughout the frenzied attack they shouted ‘Allah Akbar’ – Arabic for ‘God is great’ – then demanded horrified witnesses film them as they ranted over the crumpled body. The two black men in their 20s, waited calmly for armed police to arrive before charging at officers brandishing a rusty revolver, knives and meat cleavers.

“Before police arrived one of the killers was filmed giving his warped justification for the sickening attack: ‘We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day. You people will never be safe. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This British soldier is an eye for an eye a tooth for tooth. We apologise that women had to see this today but in our lands our women have to see the same.’

“In footage screened by ITV News, he added: ‘You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? You think your politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy like you – and your children’.”

Shocking, outrageous, inexcusable and reprehensible. But what is perhaps even more shocking is how already the dhimmi spin-machine is moving into action. We will be hearing ad nauseum that these two are an aberration, that this is an isolated incident, and that this is not really true Islam.

The Western apologists for Islam – of which there are far too many, even in high places – will do their best to water down this episode, and claim it is not reflective of Islam. But they happen to be 100 per cent wrong, sadly. This attack is fully reflective of real Islam.

Indeed, these two Muslims were living out their faith to the letter. They took the example of Muhammad quite seriously. They took the teachings of the Koran quite seriously. They took the instructions of the hadith quite seriously.

For 1400 years this has been standard Islamic behaviour. And as we know, the only guarantee a Muslim has of making it into Paradise is if he dies for the faith, taking the infidels along with him. So these men not only were most faithful to their own religion, they were looking forward to their host of dark-eyed virgins on the other end.

They will, of course, be greatly surprised at where their real end lies. But what we must not do now is start making excuses for Islam, apologising for this religion, and seeking to be useful dupes for this bloody political ideology. That is exactly what they want us to do.

They want us to defend them, be useful idiots for them, be subservient to them, and lay down our resolve to maintain freedom and democracy. They want us to be fully submissive dhimmies in other words. And recall that the word Islam means submission. A true Muslim wants everyone to submit to Allah, to come under sharia law, and be part of a universal caliphate.

In Islam there are only three options for the infidel: convert, become a second-class citizen (a dhimmi), or die. There are no other options. A real follower of Muhammad knows this and practices this. Thus what we saw on the streets of Woolwich today is Islam in action. It is Islam according to the book.

Islam expert Mark Durie has just written on this and is worth quoting at length. He says: “The killer captured on video was referencing passages from Islamic sacred texts. ‘We must fight them as they fight us’ is a phrase found repeatedly in the Koran. He specifically mentions Sura at-Tauba (chapter 9, i.e. verse 36) and ‘many, many’ other verses from the Koran, namely:

“-‘fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together’ (Sura 9:36)
-‘fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you … And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for fitnah (oppression, persecution) is worse than slaughter; … if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith’ (Sura 2:190-9)
-‘Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory’ (Sura 22:39)

“The Arabic word for ‘fight’ used in the Koran in these passages is qātilū which literally means fighting to kill. The reference ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ is also from the Koran (although ultimately borrowed from several passages in the Mosaic law): ‘And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation’ (Sura 5:54).

“The Muslim killers here are invoking a religious ruling that it is permissible to fight and kill people who wage war against Muslims. As Bin Ladin put it in his letter to the American people: ‘It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.’

“The belief which seems to underlie the Woolwich attack is that because the British government is fighting a war against Muslims in Muslim lands, it is therefore legitimate for Muslims to wage jihad against the British. British people, who voted the government into power, are also considered to be personally culpable, which is why they ‘will never be safe’ and are told to ‘remove your government’.

“The killer’s language is strikingly reminiscent of Bin Ladin’s November 2002 letter to the American people, in which he not only spoke of ‘removal’ of governments (in Muslim lands), but also explained that it was legitimate to attack American civilians because they are the ones who voted their government into power.”

He concludes, “This slaughter on the streets of Woolwich has all the hallmarks of a theologically motivated attack, and keys to understand it can be found in the Qur’an and the teachings of Muhammad. Whether the views adopted by the killers are ‘legitimate’ interpretations of the Koran and Muhammad’s teachings may be disputed. What cannot be disputed is the source where they found their inspiration.”

Yes, this is killing according to the book. This is Islamic faith in action. Until we wake up to the reality of what the political ideology of Islam is really all about, we will simply find more Western streets covered in the blood of the “infidels”.

www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/two-shot-by-police-after-soldiers-hacking-death-near-royal-artillery-barracks-in-woolwich/story-fni0xs61-1226648801254

markdurie.blogspot.com.au/

[1245 words]

Of course this was all spelled out with crystal clarity when the prophet Isaiah uttered these words: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Is. 5:20).

That describes to a T the incredible situation we now find ourselves living in. Whether secular leaders or charlatan religious leaders, we are seeing everything good being turned into objects of derision, and everything bad being elevated to lofty heights of deification.

Two recent examples of this make my case far more eloquently than I ever can. Simply reporting these two episodes as reported in the media is enough to prove without a shadow of a doubt that what Isaiah warned about is now upon us with a vengeance.

The first concerns the not unexpected backflip by Kevin Rudd on homosexual marriage. Ever the opportunist, men-pleaser, and vote-chaser, he has now outed himself, informing us that as a “Christian,” no less, he thinks homosexuality is about as good as it gets.

Anyone who disagrees with him is now a “dinosaur” or worse. All that foolishness was bad enough, and I discuss it in more detail here: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/05/21/kevin-rudds-mental-and-moral-meltdown/

But what is even more reprehensible and despicable was how our government elites responded to those who dared to question Mr Rudd’s wisdom and morality. When various commentators, including the Australian Christian Lobby pointed out a few obvious truths, these leaders went ballistic.

It was rightly stated that to proceed with homosexual marriage and its evil twin sister, homosexual adoption rights, would be tantamount to creating a whole new stolen generation. Just as the original group was stolen away from their biological parents, so would this one.

Indeed, Mr Rudd made a major stink about the first case of this, offering a national public apology. Yet here he and his social activist colleagues want to do exactly the very same thing. The fundamental right of every child to be born and raised in a home with his or her biological mother and father will be stolen away from them.

Yet Rudd, Gillard, Wong and all the other moral apostates think this is all just peachy. And they think it is horrible that anyone should even suggest otherwise. Said Senator Wong, “this sort of bigotry really has no place in modern Australia”.

And today Ms Gillard said exactly the same thing. So let me get this straight here: these guys are telling us that to be concerned about the welfare and wellbeing of children, and their basic right to enjoy their own mum and dad is nothing other than ugly bigotry.

OK, so what am I missing here? I just don’t get it. Having a deep concern about children, and seeking what is the very best for them, is now a case of bigotry? Can someone please explain to me the logic of this? The morality of this? The sense of this? This just does not compute on any level whatsoever.

Of course it makes sense in a PC secular left world where truth is trashed, morality is mangled, and reason is ravaged. Only in a world that has gone mad, and has been involved in the greatest moral meltdown in history can such insanity be passed off as wise commentary by our elites.

The truth is those who are governing us have gone completely mad – in every sense of the word. They are a mad, bad and sad lot. They evidently hate children so much that they actually believe their own lies. This really is the end of civilisation if this is what passes for leadership in the West.

But let me offer one more example of the rape of truth, morality, theology and reason. It comes from a person who is actually allowed to be called a Bishop. Go figure. The story begins as follows: “The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has denounced the Apostle Paul as mean-spirited and bigoted for having released a slave girl from demonic bondage as reported in Acts 16:16-34. In her sermon delivered at All Saints Church in Curaçao in the diocese of Venezuela, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori condemned those who did not share her views as enemies of the Holy Spirit.”

Um, yes, you read that right. She said: “We’re seeing something similar right now in the changing attitudes and laws about same-sex relationships, as many people come to recognize that different is not the same thing as wrong. For many people, it can be difficult to see God at work in the world around us, particularly if God is doing something unexpected.”

She illustrates her point by turning to the book of Acts: “There are some remarkable examples of that kind of blindness in the readings we heard this morning, and slavery is wrapped up in a lot of it. Paul is annoyed at the slave girl who keeps pursuing him, telling the world that he and his companions are slaves of God. She is quite right. She’s telling the same truth Paul and others claim for themselves. But Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness. Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it.”

Did you get that? Paul was horribly wrong to cast demons out of this girl. It ‘deprived her of her gift of spiritual awareness’. What?! What?! And those who disagree with her “exegesis” are “enemies of the Holy Spirit”! What complete and utter theological baloney!

And she is a Bishop?! No wonder so many of our churches are as spiritual and biblical as a basketball. With leaders like this in the pulpits, no wonder so many Christians are absolutely clueless as to what they believe and what they should believe.

We have deception in the pulpit big time. Truth has been replaced by lies and deception. And as Jeremiah bemoaned, “my people love it this way” (Jer. 5:31). So we have political leaders, religious leaders, social leaders, and all sorts of other leaders who seem to have all succumbed to the same disease.

All we need is a new name for this deadly outbreak. Perhaps Isaiah 5:20-itis or some such thing. During the French Revolution Diderot said this: “Let us strangle the last king with the entrails of the last priest.” It seems the god of this world has said the same about our current crop of leaders, destroying them with massive doses of theological moonbattery and moral inversion.

www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/senator-wong-condemns-christian-lobbys-stolen-generations-comment-20130521-2jyn3.html

anglicanink.com/article/diversity-not-jesus-saves-says-presiding-bishop#.UZp43NrKnS8.facebook

[1154 words]

The former Prime Minister has just come out of the closet, telling us he as a Christian thinks homosexuality and homosexual marriage are just peachy keen. He thus has shown us his true colours. They may be the colours of the homosexual rainbow, but they are not the colours of biblical Christianity.

His 2000-word defence of his change of heart is painful to read. His mental gymnastics, moral obfuscations, and theological sleight-of-hand tricks are appalling – certainly for anyone who claims to be some sort of Christian. We expect all this idiocy from pagans and homosexual militants, but not from those who try to pass themselves off as believers.

Indeed, reading through this, one finds the exact same arguments used for decades now by the homosexual activists and their secular buddies. All the old red herrings, straw men and tired chestnuts are repeated here. All the usual clichés, bloated rhetoric, and sham jargon are found here as well: “marriage equality,” “discrimination” and so forth.

It is all straight out of the homosexuals’ playbook. And Rudd still claims to be a Christian in all this! Sorry, but you are nothing of the sort – you are just a stooge for the militants. You are doing their bidding perfectly. Everything they want you are fully and foolishly advocating for.

With so much inanity contained in such a short piece, it is hard to know where to begin. And of course I have already spent 20 years rebutting all these lame arguments – so the case why Rudd is so dead wrong can be found in my book Strained Relations. But I don’t wish to repeat myself here.

Let’s examine a few of his whoppers. Consider this lulu: “I for one have never accepted the argument from some Christians that homosexuality is an abnormality. People do not choose to be gay.” Not abnormal? Not wrong? And you still claim to be a Christian? Sorry Kev, but you must choose here: we either agree with the Word of God, or we reject it.

And it looks like that is exactly what he has done: he has completely trampled on the biblical witness, and sided with the activists. And no choice in the matter? So you mean all those homosexuals who say there most certainly is choice in the matter are just liars? I quote many of these folks in my book of course.

He also deliberately deceives when he says “30 years of research has seen … that same sex families do not compromise children’s development.” Hogwash. There are 50 years of research showing how children are gravely disadvantaged when they are not raised by their own biological parents, cemented in marriage. My book also deals extensively with this issue.

And he seeks to make his case by saying he grew up without a dad, and suffered no ill-effects. That is about as helpful as saying he grew up without one leg but got by OK. Of course you can, but it is never ideal. Fatherlessness poses very real negative outcomes for children, as thousands of studies have documented. I just recently offered a very brief survey of this mountain of data:

www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/05/17/the-facts-on-fatherlessness-part-one/

www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/05/17/the-facts-on-fatherlessness-part-two/

Of course a large part of his piece is a very confused understanding of church-state relations. He wants the church basically to butt out here, and leave a redefined marriage as a secular state affair. And this from the same guy who claims to idolise Bonhoeffer. You remember him, the guy who felt that his faith and beliefs must directly impact on the State – and who paid for this with his life under Hitler’s regime.

But now Kev wants an altogether different approach, and he raises all the same baloney that atheists like Dawkins raise: the Bible also supports slavery, witch-hunts, etc, etc. Oh puh-leeese Kevin, your biblical knowledge and understanding is just as skewed and twisted as that of Dawkins. But at least he does not pretend to be a Christian.

The state has a very vital interest in the social institution of marriage. Strong healthy heterosexual marriages are good for children, good for societies, and good for nations. That is why the state has always had a keen interest in promoting heterosexual marriage, but not other forms of relationships. I discuss that more fully here:

www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/04/04/libertarianism-and-marriage-part-one/

www.billmuehlenberg.com/2012/04/04/libertarianism-and-marriage-part-two/

He also foolishly, naively, or disingenuously informs us that churches should not be forced to restructure their beliefs when homosexual marriage comes in. Hate to break it to you Kev, but they are already being forced by the heavy hand of the law to abandon their beliefs and compromise their convictions.

I have offered heaps of examples of this on my site, and my new book will feature hundreds more. Whenever special rights for homosexuals are granted, including marriage rights, then of necessity the church suffers, freedoms are taken away, and Christian conscience is trampled upon. See here for just a sampling of this evidence:

www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/12/10/same-sex-marriage-who-says-nothing-will-change/

Rudd also informs us that part of his change of heart was due to a homosexual Pentecostal staffer! Oh great, so if you have an adulterous Baptist staffer, or fornicating Catholic staffer, will you ditch the biblical position on those sins as well?

And he has the gall to tell us his change of heart and why he wrote his piece is because “it is the right thing to do”. No it is not at all the right thing to do: it is the politically correct thing to do, the men-pleasing thing to do, and the anti-biblical thing to do.

All of which is expected of atheists and homosexual militants. But when people try to cloak this deception and immorality under the guise of Christianity, then you know we simply have yet another wolf in sheep’s clothing. But given that this is always how I felt about the guy, I for one am not the least bit surprised.

www.kevinruddmp.com/2013/05/church-and-state-are-able-to-have.html?m=1

[1044 words]

But none of us can afford to go without the truth. Sometimes the most painful truth is the thing we most need. Consider medical truth. If you are afflicted with a deadly cancer, the number one thing you need to hear – regardless of how unpleasant it may be – is the truth about your condition.

No doctor worth his salt would ever withhold valuable information about a possibly fatal condition or illness for fear of upsetting a patient or making him feel bad. He will instead speak the truth about the cancer or whatever, and then offer steps to correct or heal things.

There would be nothing loving about denying medical truth to a patient if that truth can result in a life being saved or real healing taking place. The truth about cancer may never be pleasant, but it is always vital, and must be shared. Not to do so can have disastrous results.

Spiritually speaking this is also the case. We must always speak biblical truth, even when it seems unpalatable and unpleasant to do so. And many spiritual truths are not so nice or so pleasant. The truths about daily dying to self, crucifying our flesh, and carrying our cross are not exactly light and bubbly – but they are fundamental Christian truths nonetheless.

Telling a non-believer he is a sinner headed for future judgment unless he repents and turns from sin and self to Christ will not be seen as very pleasant either – but it is a core biblical truth which all believers are obligated to share. And fellow believers also need to be told the truth, even if it offends or stings.

Paul never shrunk away from telling the truth, even if it was costly to him. He may have lost friendships and alienated others, but truth was always something he never withheld or weakened or watered down. In fact, he got a lot of flak when he shared biblical truth.

In Galatians 4:16 for example Paul says this: “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” That always seems to be the case when we stand firm on the Word of God and biblical truth. It will alienate some. It will offend some. It will create enemies with some.

Jesus knew all about this. Wherever he went he stirred things up, caused controversy, made enemies, and got harsh reactions. Indeed, we are often told that the crowds were divided because of his words. It is the nature of truth to do that: either we come to the truth and embrace it, or we reject the truth and flee from it.

Yet today it seems most Christians would rather run a thousand miles away from the truth, than risk getting some opposition and flak for proclaiming it. We have a church full of invertebrates who think that not rocking the boat and not offending anyone is their highest calling.

They are terrified of getting anyone upset, so they will rather keep silent about the things that matter than boldly proclaim truth, regardless of the negative consequences. Jesus had a few things to say about those who refused to speak out.

It is not just the gospel of Jesus Christ that many believers are afraid to publicly express, but so too any words on the vital issues of the day. Our silence on things like the sanctity of life and God’s ideal of marriage and family has been deafening.

Indeed, I am fully convinced that if something like Facebook had been around 70 years ago, there would be plenty of Christians defriending you if you dared to speak out on what the Nazis were doing, or showed pictures of the Holocaust and the death camps – just as today they will defriend you for talking about abortion, and revealing its ugly face.

I know that many Christians do this all the time – they simply don’t like the controversy and big debates. They prefer to live a quiet and peaceful life, and will never deal with these massively important topics. Many will not even share the gospel for fear of offending people or ruffling feathers.

One day we will all stand before our Lord and give an account of our time here on earth. Jesus already warned us about this: “I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God” (Luke 12:8-9).

Of course having said all this, I do not for a moment mean to suggest that there is no need for tact, diplomacy, grace and sensitivity when presenting the truth. It goes without saying that we are to “speak the truth in love” as Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:15.

Sure, we must pray for wisdom and guidance as to if and when we speak out. Being careful and wise in how we share truth is of course important. But my point here is a different one: far too many people who call themselves followers of Christ seldom, if ever, speak forth truth.

And with people heading to a lost eternity, babies being slaughtered in the millions, and God’s provision for human sexuality taking a hammering – to name but a few important issues – such silence is morally reprehensible. We will be judged for our silence just as much as for anything we may have said or done.

The church of Jesus Christ needs some Holy Ghost boldness today, and must repent of the sin of men-pleasing and cowardice. Paul prayed for boldness to proclaim the truths of God – we must do so as well.

[1000 words]

They are always completely one-sided, with you as the sole token conservative, pitted against a secular lefty host, and 1, 2, 3, 4 or more secular lefty sparring partners. That is how the lamestream media thinks a “fair” debate ought to be conducted.

And our taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS are among the worst culprits here. I have written dozens of articles on these rogue broadcasters, and have pointed out plenty of such shocking miscarriages of intellectual justice. These folks are not in the slightest bit interested in fair debate.

They are interested in only one thing: ramming their radical agendas down everyone’s throats. The token conservative voice is there for only one reason: to give the ever so slight impression of balance and fairness. But there is nothing fair or balanced about these shows.

And the ABC show Q&A is among the worst of these shows. The host Tony Jones is an uber-secular lefty who never displays impartiality or fairness. He always sides with his lefty buddies over against any conservatives or Christians who might happen to be on.

We get another crystal clear example of all this coming up next Monday night on Q&A. On the May 27 panel we have the following line-up (as described on their website):
Lawrence Krauss – Theoretical Physicist & Cosmologist
Gene Robinson – America’s First Openly Gay Bishop
Fred Nile – Conservative Morals Campaigner
Amanda Vanstone – Former Howard Government Minister
Susan Ryan – Age Discrimination Commissioner

There you have it – another completely stacked ABC deck: one biblical Christian against a hardcore atheist, an apostate Bishop, and two other non-Christian non-conservatives. So it is Fred against Tony (another secular lefty) and four others.

For more on just one of these characters, see my write-up about this American apostate wolf in sheep’s clothing: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/04/17/wolves-endorsing-wolves/

And notice how Fred Nile is described: “Conservative Morals Campaigner”! Never mind that he is one of NSW’s longest standing politicians who has done so much good over the decades. Instead we have simply a pejorative, prejudicial description. Thus the deck is stacked against him already, an entire week before the program even goes to air.

Oh, and can I tell you already what topics will be covered? Homosexuality and homosexual marriage will take up a large part of the show – I guarantee it. And isn’t it interesting that every single person on that panel, along with the moderator – except for Fred – will be in favour of the homosexual agenda.

This is how the ABC operates. Pick a hot potato contentious issue and pretend that everyone in the world – except the token conservative – is in favour of it. Never mind that the community at large is quite divided over this, as is in fact even the homosexual community.

But here you will have everyone blasting away at Fred, seeking to make him look like a Neanderthal and a barbarian. This is what the ABC does deliberately. This has absolutely nothing to do with a genuine discussion of ideas. This is not at all a real and proper debate.

It is simply our taxpayer-funded leftist outfit using shows like this to push radical agendas – in this case the agenda of the radical homosexual lobby. That is the only reason for this program. Ideas are not there to be discussed and debated. Instead, ideologies and agendas are there to be pushed and promoted – all at our expense of course.

So please do pray like mad for Fred. He will need our prayers more than you can imagine. And I know – as I said, I have been on plenty of these sorts of shows, and they are the most unpleasant programs to be on. I do not envy Fred one bit. He has the entire diabolical intelligentsia up against him.

He not only needs a whole lot of prayer cover, but he needs other bits of practical help as well. For example, he needs supporters there with him in the audience. And we need to send in questions which can be helpful to Fred as the debate goes on.

So please stand up for Fred. This is a very tough assignment, and it can cause plenty of indigestion and grief. Our God is a great God, and will go with Fred. But he needs the prayers and help of his people as well. So please stand with him.

****

Oh, and just in case you think I overstate the leftist bias of the ABC in particular and the MSM in general, this just came in from Andrew Bolt:

“Folker Hanusch, senior lecturer in journalism at University of the Sunshine Coast, on new polling confirming the Leftist bias of the overwhelming majority of journalists: ‘Our survey was conducted by telephone with carefully selected journalists from newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, online news sites and news agency AAP, as a sample of the 8000 to 10,000 journalists in Australia today.

“‘When asked about their voting intentions, less than two-thirds of the journalists we surveyed revealed their voting intention. Of those 372 people, 43.0% said they would give their first preference vote to Labor; 30.2% would vote for the Coalition; and 19.4% said they would choose the Greens – about twice the Australian average.’

“No bunch of journalist skews more violently left than the ABC: ‘However, 41.2% of the 34 ABC journalists who declared a voting intention said they would vote for the Greens, followed by 32.4% for Labor and 14.7% for the Coalition’.”

There you go folks. The ABC is one big wasteland when it comes to conservatism – and Christianity as well I might add.

www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/anything_but_conservative_survey_confirms_all_you_suspected_about_the_abc/

[981 words]

And that is exactly what is now happening. All sorts of groups are demanding that their perverse sexual preferences be fully recognised, supported and given government endorsement. I have documented this both in my book, Strained Relations, and on my website.

As these demands are never-ending, so my coverage of all this will have to be never-ending. So let me look again at another “love” which is quickly and proudly coming out of the closet. Sadly there are now many calling for the legalisation of bestiality, or zoophilia. Yes, there is even a “scientific” name now assigned to those who want to enjoy “equal love” with animals.

And these are not just a few cranks and misfits. Sadly we have academics, educational institutions, and plenty of other respectable type groups calling for this. Indeed, simply google the euphemistic term “zoophilia”. When I last did this some 1.2 million hits came up. There are all sorts of zoophilia sites, organisations, groups, societies and advocates out there seriously promoting all this.

In fact, there is far too much material here for me to do proper justice to it, so let me just select a few representative examples. Let’s begin with this headline: “Those Who Practice Bestiality Say They’re Part of the Next Sexual Rights Movement.” The headline alone says it all: If the homosexual lobby can get their way with full recognition and legalisation, then why can’t we?

The article speaks of a Cody Beck who is quite serous in seeing his “rights” recognised: “Being a ‘zoophile’ in modern American society, Beck says, is ‘like being gay in the 1950s. You feel like you have to hide, that if you say it out loud, people will look at you like a freak.’ Now Beck believes he and other members of this minority sexual orientation, who often call themselves ‘zoos,’ can follow the same path as the gay rights movement. Most researchers believe 2 to 8 percent of the population harbors forbidden desires toward animals, and Beck hopes this minority group can begin appealing to the open-minded for acceptance.”

I mentioned that universities and academics are even happy to run with this. Here is another headline to get your head around: “Yale hosts workshop teaching sensitivity to bestiality”. Yes, that would be Yale University. The entire article is so incredible that I am tempted to quote the whole piece. But let me offer this much:

“On Saturday afternoon, Yale hosted a ‘sensitivity training’ in which students were asked to consider topics such as bestiality, incest, and accepting money for sex. During the workshop, entitled, ‘Sex: Am I Normal,’ students anonymously asked and answered questions about sex using their cell phones, and viewed the responses in real time in the form of bar charts. The session was hosted by ‘sexologist’ Dr. Jill McDevitt, who owns a sex store called Feminique in West Chester, Pa. Survey responses revealed that nine percent of attendees had been paid for sex, 3 percent had engaged in bestiality, and 52 percent had participated in ‘consensual pain’ during sex, according to an article published in the Yale Daily News on Monday.

“Event director Giuliana Berry told Campus Reform in an interview on Monday that the workshop was brought to campus to teach students not to automatically judge people who may have engaged in these sorts of activities, but rather to respond with ‘understanding’ and ‘compassion.’ ‘People do engage in some of these activities that we believe only for example perverts engage in,’ she said. ‘What the goal is is to increase compassion for people who may engage in activities that are not what you would personally consider normal.’ McDevitt referred to the range of activities discussed in the workshop as ‘sexual diversity.’ ‘It tries to get people to be more sensitive … to sexual diversity,’ McDevitt told Campus Reform in an interview on Monday. ‘We’re not all heterosexual, able-bodied folks who have standard missionary sex’.”

There you go: we need to offer “understanding” and “compassion” to those who are into zoophilia, or incest, or whatever. And the last thing we should do is cast any moral judgment on any of this: “‘It’s sensitivity training,’ McDevitt told Campus Reform. ‘Don’t judge other people, because we all have something we are embarrassed about’.”

One well respected academic has been quite cavalier about bestiality for years now. I refer to Princeton University’s Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer. He is rather infamous for a piece he penned back in 2001 called “Heavy Petting”. The online magazine Nerve, the site where it first appeared, seems to have pulled it, but one can still find the entire article elsewhere. He said this, in part:

“The existence of sexual contact between humans and animals, and the potency of the taboo against it, displays the ambivalence of our relationship with animals. On the one hand, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition — less so in the East — we have always seen ourselves as distinct from animals, and imagined that a wide, unbridgeable gulf separates us from them. Humans alone are made in the image of God. Only human beings have an immortal soul….

“On the other hand there are many ways in which we cannot help behaving just as animals do — or mammals, anyway — and sex is one of the most obvious ones. We copulate, as they do. They have penises and vaginas, as we do, and the fact that the vagina of a calf can be sexually satisfying to a man shows how similar these organs are. The taboo on sex with animals may, as I have already suggested, have originated as part of a broader rejection of non-reproductive sex.

“But the vehemence with which this prohibition continues to be held, its persistence while other non-reproductive sexual acts have become acceptable, suggests that there is another powerful force at work: our desire to differentiate ourselves, erotically and in every other way, from animals….

“But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop.”

This guy is actually saying all this with a straight face! And all this is not just theory or speculation. We have already had a number of cases of people “marrying” their beloved animals. As but one Australian example of this, consider this story:

“A young Toowoomba man yesterday tied the knot with his best friend – a five-year-old labrador. In perhaps a first for the Garden City, Laurel Bank Park hosted the wedding of Joseph Guiso and Honey, a labrador he adopted five years ago. Thirty of the couple’s closest friends and family were in attendance for the emotional ceremony, held at dusk.”

The news item continues: “Mr Guiso said as a ‘religious guy’, he could no longer take the guilt of living with Honey out of wedlock. ‘It’s not sexual,’ he assured the onlookers. ‘It’s just pure love.’ The couple is planning a short honeymoon to one of Toowoomba’s parks.”

And to give cat lovers equal space here, consider this story of a German man who married his own cat: “A German man has unofficially married his cat after the animal fell ill and vets told him it might not live much longer, Bild newspaper reports. It says Uwe Mitzscherlich, 39, paid an actress 300 euros (£260,$395) to officiate at the ceremony, as marrying an animal is illegal in Germany.

“Mr Mitzscherlich said he had wanted to tie the knot before his asthmatic cat Cecilia died. The cat and groom have lived together for 10 years. ‘Cecilia is such a trusting creature. We cuddle all the time and she has always slept in my bed,’ Mr Mitzscherlich, a postman from the eastern town of Possendorf, told Bild. Actress Christin-Maria Lohri, who officiated the ceremony, was quoted as saying: ‘At first I thought it was a joke. But for Mr Mitzscherlich it’s a dream come true’.”

Bestiality, zoophilia, and marriage rights with animals then is clearly the next step in the sexual revolution. Albert Camus once said, “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon the world.” In this case it might be more accurate to say, “A man without ethics is a man loosed upon wild beasts.”

www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-bestiality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/

www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4646

www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001—-.htm

www.thechronicle.com.au/news/man-marrys-dog-city-first-toowoomba/710538/

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8658327.stm

[1465 words]

Started by American social commentator and family expert Dr Allan Carlson, the Congress was first held in Prague in 1997. Five other major events were held between that initial congress and the one just completed. Geneva, Mexico City, Warsaw, Amsterdam and Madrid were the venues, and a number of regional conferences have also been held.

In Sydney some 600 eager delegates were able to spend three full days listening to numerous authorities on family, marriage and related issues. Along with Dr Carlson were other international keynote speakers such as Patrick Fagan, Bradford Wilcox, Janice Shaw Crouse, Steve Mosher, Miriam Grossman, Ian Grant, Ted Baehr, and Bob McCoskrie.

Australian keynote speakers included Ian Harper, George Pell, Peter Elliot, John Anderson and Patrick Parkinson. Over 100 other speakers were on hand, including Sharon Slater, William May, Warwick Marsh, Rabbi Shimon Cowen, Paige Patterson, David Phillips, Miranda Devine, David van Gend, John Ballantyne and Bob Day.

The theme of this WCF was “Happy Families, Healthy Economy: A New Vision for National Prosperity and Social Progress.” One speaker after another demonstrated how the well-being of families leads directly to the well-being of nations. Healthy, functioning families make for healthy, functioning societies, while broken families result in broken economies and broken countries.

A wealth of data, fact and evidence was marshalled, along with inspiring stories and testimonials. Numerous other marriage and family topics were covered, including:
- The Causes and Cost of Family Breakdown
- What Families Are Best for the Economy?
- Philosophical Roots of the Cultural Revolution
- Secular Humanism and Family Values
- Demographic Winter
- The Impact on Children of Legalising “Same-Sex Marriage”
- Economic and Social Costs of Abortion
- Healing Post-Abortion Trauma
- Work of the Home: A True Profession
- AIDS Prevention through Strengthening Families
- Marriage as an Instrument of Human Development
- The Pornography Industry
- and Reaching the Next Generation with a Pro-Family Message

A conference dinner featured the world-renowned photographer Ken Duncan and his work. After these very full three days, the 600 present left revived, reinvigorated and enthused about standing tall in the defence of marriage and family.

Yet incredibly there were some who did not even want this conference to go ahead. For example, Alex Greenwich, NSW member for Sydney and Chairperson of Australian Marriage Equality, actually wanted the conference to be monitored for “hate speech”.

WCF Managing Director Lawrence Jacobs said, “Perhaps, it is Mr. Greenwich who should be monitored for possible human rights violations for imposing a radical, secular worldview that privileges a few adults at the expense of the natural family and the rights of children to be raised by a married mother and a father in their own home.

“The definition of the natural family derives from the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted in 1948 and binding on all United Nations member states of the world. The UDHR states (Article 16:3), ‘the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.’

“This is the human rights basis and inspiration for our use of the term ‘natural family’ and the WCF mission to provide sound scholarship and effective strategies to affirm and defend the natural family, thus renewing a stable and free society.”

Jacobs also said of the history of WCF, “In all of that time, no elected official has ever been successful in censoring a Congress for our expression of support for the natural family and the presentation of research, ideas, and solutions to our modern-day economic and social problems. In Amsterdam on the third day of WCF V, left-wing newspapers which disagreed with us, actually defended our right to be in the city and present our research and ideas to help children and families.”

Nonetheless protestors did come to the Sydney conference, seeking to disrupt things, but the police did a good job of keeping them at bay. But just imagine: actually protesting the family. One might as well target a conference extolling the advantages of breathing, or eating. Just think if those topics were attacked as being intolerant, bigoted and judgmental.

The very fact that we have to put on international conferences to defend and promote marriage and family shows just how far we have degenerated as a society. Up until recently, everyone simply enjoyed and did family, as we simply eat and breathe.

But today we actually have to justify why we think family is good, and marriage an honourable estate. Our topsy-turvy world now celebrates and encourages attacks on marriage and family, while regarding the upholding of these historic social institutions as somehow being a bigoted and hateful thing.

As long as this climate of moral inversion and mental mushiness persists, then conferences such as this will always be needed. As G K Chesterton once wrote, “This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilisations which disregard it.”

Until sanity returns to the West, and family is once again regarded as the supreme good, and a blessing unequalled, we will have need for such conferences. Long may the World Congress of Families prosper. Thanks again Dr Carlson and others for bringing it about.

And the Australian team, led by Mary-Louise Fowler, which was responsible for putting on this invaluable conference, must also be heartily congratulated. It was an outstanding event, and the conference team did a superlative job.

However, if you are now feeling a bit let down because you missed out on the conference, you can always join us again next year. See you in Moscow, September 10-12, 2014.

www.christiannewswire.com/news/9794371997.html

www.news.com.au/national-news/australian-gay-rights-advocate-alex-greenwich-compared-to-stalin/story-fncynjr2-1226633250943

[990 words]

Fatherlessness is a growing problem in Australia and the Western world. Whether caused by divorce and broken families, or by deliberate single parenting, more and more children grow up without fathers. Indeed, 85 per cent of single parent families are fatherless families.

Writing about the situation in America in 1996, sociologist David Popenoe said this: “The decline of fatherhood is one of the most basic, unexpected, and extraordinary social trends of our time. Its dimensions can be captured in a single statistic: In just three decades, between 1960 and 1990, the percentage of U.S. children living apart from their biological fathers more than doubled, from 17 percent to 36 percent. By the turn of the century, nearly 50 percent of American children may be going to sleep each evening without being able to say good night to their dads.”

And these trends are not without negative consequences. Father absence has been shown to be a major disadvantage to the well-being of children. The following is a summary of the evidence for the importance of fathers and the need for two-parent families.

One expert from Harvard medical school who has studied over 40 years of research on the question of parental absence and children’s well-being said this: “What has been shown over and over again to contribute most to the emotional development of the child is a close, warm, sustained and continuous relationship with both parents.” Or as David Blankenhorn has stated in Fatherless America: “Fatherlessness is the most harmful demographic trend of this generation.”

Another expert puts it this way: “There exists today no greater single threat to the long-term well-being of children, our communities, or our nation, than the increasing number of children being raised without a committed, responsible, and loving father.”

Bryan Rodgers of the Australian National University has recently re-examined the Australian research. Says Rodgers: “Australian studies with adequate samples have shown parental divorce to be a risk factor for a wide range of social and psychological problems in adolescence and adulthood, including poor academic achievement, low self-esteem, psychological distress, delinquency and recidivism, substance use and abuse, sexual precocity, adult criminal offending, depression, and suicidal behaviour.” He concludes: “There is no scientific justification for disregarding the public health significance of marital dissolution in Australia, especially with respect to mental health.”

A New Zealand summary of the data based on national and international research conducted over the past two decades also found major positive outcomes for children when fathers are present, and negative outcomes when fathers are absent. The report states:

“The weight of the evidence is that fathers can make unique, direct contributions to their children’s well-being. These findings held true after controlling for a range of factors, including mothers’ involvement, children’s characteristics, children’s early behavioural problems, family income, socio-economic status over time, stepfather involvement and family structure.” It goes on to list the many specific ways in which fathers positively contribute to the well-being of children.

And the importance of fathers is neither a recent nor a merely Western truth. The need and importance of fathers is an historical and universal given. As anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski put it, “The most important moral and legal rule concerning the physiological side of kinship is that no child should be brought into the world without a man – and one man at that. . . . I think that this generalization amounts to a universal sociological law.” There may be cultural variations, yet “through all the variations there runs the rule that the father is indispensable for the full sociological status of the child as well as its mother, that the group consisting of a woman and her offspring is sociologically incomplete and illegitimate.”

Here then is a sampling of the evidence:

Economic difficulties

• In America, among families with dependent children, only 8.3 per cent of married couples were living below the poverty line, compared to 47.1 percent of female-headed households.
• Also in the US, a nationally representative sample found this: “In 2005, the median income for married couples was $66,067, which was $35,000 more than the median income for single mothers, $19,000 more than that of single fathers, $43,000 more than that of single women, and $24,000 more than that of single men. Married couples made up 79 percent of the highest quintile income and 17.9 percent of the lowest income quintile.”
• In Australia, a recent study of 500 divorcees with children five to eight years after the separation found that four in five divorced mothers were dependent on social security after their marriages dissolved.
• Figures from Monash University’s Centre for Population and Urban Research show that family break-up, rather than unemployment, is the main cause of the rise in poverty levels in Australia.
• A joint report from AMP Life and Canberra University’s National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling says that divorce leaves both partners worse off economically, but women tend to experience the biggest fall in disposable income.
• A recent US study “found that by far the ‘biggest factor’ associated with child poverty in a county is the proportion of households headed by unwed mothers with children under 18 years of age.” They established that every 1 percentage-point increase in these households correlates with a 1.2 percentage-point increase in the county’s child-poverty rate.

Educational performance

• American children from intact families have a 21 per cent chance of dropping out of high school whereas children from broken families have a 46 per cent chance.
• American school children who became father-absent early in life generally scored significantly lower on measures of IQ and achievement tests.
• A recent Concordia University found clear positive effects of a father’s influence on the behavioural and cognitive development of children. For example, “for both boys and girls, fathers’ positive parental control predicted higher Performance IQ and fewer internalizing problems over six years later.”
• A study of Australian primary school children from three family types (married heterosexual couples, cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual couples) found that in every area of educational endeavour (language; mathematics; social studies; sport; class work, sociability and popularity; and attitudes to learning), children from married heterosexual couples performed better than the other two groups. The study concludes with these words: “Married couples seem to offer the best environment for a child’s social and educational development”.
• A Melbourne University study of 212 children found that fathers, even more than mothers, had a major beneficial influence on children in their first year of school. The study found that kids with regular father involvement were more cooperative and self-reliant in school than kids who did not have father involvement. The more regular involvement the father has with the child, the study’s author said, the better the child does in his or her first year of school.

Criminal involvement

• A British study found a direct statistical link between single parenthood and virtually every major type of crime, including mugging, violence against strangers, car theft and burglary.
• Also in the UK, studies have shown that “children from broken homes are nine times more likely to commit crimes than those from stable families” and “seven out of 10 offenders come from broken homes”.
• One American study even arrived at this startling conclusion: the proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rates of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not. Neither poverty nor race seem to account very much for the crime rate, compared to the proportion of single parent families.
• In Australia, a recent book noted the connection between broken families and crime. In a discussion of rising crime rates in Western Australia, the book reported that “family breakdown in the form of divorce and separation is the main cause of the crime wave”.
• Maryland researchers found that bullying and aggressive behaviour are associated with family breakdown. This is especially the cause of girls’ aggressiveness: “the percentage of single men and mother-alone families rival neighborhood violence as providing the most explanatory power” for aggressiveness among girls.

Involvement with drugs and alcohol

• A UCLA study pointed out that inadequate family structure makes children more susceptible to drug use “as a coping mechanism to relieve depression and anxiety.”
• Another US study found that among the homes with strict fathers, only 18 per cent had children who used alcohol or drugs at all. In contrast, among mother-dominated homes, 35 per cent had children who used drugs frequently.
• A National Institutes of Health study showed a clear connection between non-intact families and child drug abuse: “Our analyses indicated that children from intact families used significantly less inhalants, marijuana, and amphetamines than children from single-parent families.”
• A New Zealand study of nearly 1000 children observed over a period of 15 years found that children who have watched their parents separate are more likely to use illegal drugs than those whose parents stay together.
• A South African study found that teens from single parent homes were more likely to consume alcohol and do so from an earlier age. Of those who ever drank, 81 per cent of the teens aged 16-18 lived with parents who were divorced compared to 51 per cent of students whose parents were married and living together.

Sexual problems

• Studies from many different cultures have found that girls raised without fathers are more likely to be sexually active, and to start early sexual activity. Father-deprived girls “show precocious sexual interest, derogation of masculinity and males, and poor ability to maintain sexual and emotional adjustment with one male”.
• A US study found that girls who grow up without fathers were “53 percent more likely to marry as teenagers, 111 percent more likely to have children as teenagers, 164 percent more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92 percent more likely to dissolve their own marriages.”
• Another US study made this conclusion: “youth who spend part of their childhood/youth living in a household that does not include their biological father are more likely to smoke regularly, become sexually active, and be convicted of a crime.”
• New Zealand research has found that the absence of a father is a major factor in the early onset of puberty and teenage pregnancy. Dr Bruce Ellis, Psychologist in Sexual Development at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch found that one of the most important factors in determining early menarche is the father: “There seems to be something special about the role of fathers in regulating daughters sexual development”.
• A British study found that girls brought up by lone parents were twice as likely to leave home by the age of 18 as the daughters of intact homes; were three times as likely to be cohabiting by the age of 20; and almost three times as likely to have a birth out of wedlock.

Part Two is here: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/05/17/the-facts-on-fatherlessness-part-two/

[1869 words]