Michigan Paper Campaigns Against High Divorce Rate

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/  about an attempt to fight divorce in Michigan. This follows this post about a Movie called "Expelled."   For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Michigan Paper Campaigns Against High Divorce Rate






article by Melvin Rhodes





As the state of New York joins the other 49 states in allowing no-fault divorce, a surprising bill before the Michigan legislature aims to make divorce for couples with young children more difficult.



God hates divorce.



We're told this in Malachi 2:16For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.



See All..., which adds, "For it covers one's garment with violence."



Surprisingly, my local newspaper also seems to see the connection between divorce and violence.



Michigan, like all the other states in the United States now that New York has changed its law, has a no-fault divorce law. That means that if any married person wants out of a marriage, he or she can get out of it. There doesn't have to be a reason. "More than 80% of...divorces are unilateral," my local paper reported ("There's Plenty to Discuss About Divorce," Lansing State Journal, July 9, 2010).



The Lansing State Journal believes this needs to change.



Every year, in Michigan alone, there are 30,000 children affected by divorce. That is 30,000 young children who will no longer share the same home with Mom and Dad. Usually, the children stay with Mom, and Dad lives elsewhere. As the total family income remains the same, this results in considerable hardship and even dire poverty.



Divorce is the number one cause of poverty. According to a recent Dateline documentary on NBC, 60 percent of children who do not have enough to eat are the children of divorce, living with a mother who is often destitute.



Highlighting the link with violence, the Lansing State Journal warns that these children are the most vulnerable in our society and the ones who are most likely to fill our prisons a decade or so down the line.



Yet the prevailing attitude of many when justifying their own divorce is: "Children are resilient!"



Trends and tragedies

I remember watching the Middle Eastern news channel al-Jazeera some years ago while on a visit to West Africa. This was at a time when the United States was lecturing a Middle Eastern nation on its human rights record. One lady from the region made the comment: "Who are the Americans to lecture us on human rights? The basic right of every child is to have two parents, yet half America's children don't." Good point.



The U.S. divorce rate is about 50 percent. Half of all American marriages end in divorce.



On a recent visit to Turkey, I asked our tour guide what the divorce rate was in the country. He said it was 3 percent. So I started checking the Internet. India has an even lower divorce rate of 1.1 percent, or 11 couples in a thousand!



It might surprise some today to learn that the U.S. divorce rate was much lower a century ago. There was a time when divorce was frowned upon and socially unacceptable. Of course, that was also a time when people were more aware of biblical teachings against divorce and for the sanctity and lifetime commitment of marriage.



The fact that it has become much more acceptable in the last few decades is a contributing factor to the exponential increase in the number of divorces.



"A team of researchers led by Brown University's Rose McDermott looked over material from a study of 12,000 Massachusetts residents since 1948 and concluded that divorce is contagious," wrote the Lansing paper on its opinion page leader. "A bill to restrict divorce, Senate Bill 1127, was filed in February." So far, it has not progressed any further.



Continuing, the paper said: "The state of Michigan has a vested interest in the welfare of its children. It's long been known that divorce can lead to all sorts of negative outcomes for children. As such, Michigan should reverse the last 30 years of policy and restrict the use of no-fault divorce for couples with minor children."



What the Bible says about the attacks on marriage

The apostle Paul's predictions in 2 Timothy 3:1-2 [1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,





See All... help us understand why divorce is more prevalent today. "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves."



Not just men, of course, but women also. This is a very self-centered age. Selfishness abounds. Marriage requires a couple to care for each other. A successful marriage requires selflessness; selfishness is detrimental to marriage.



Paul also wrote of how the relationship between a man and a woman is similar to the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church. "So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes it and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church" (Ephesians 5:28-29 [28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

[29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:





See All...).



God not only hates divorce, He never intended it to happen in the first place. Jesus Christ said: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.



See All...).



A primary reason for divorce is mentioned in the very next verse. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.



See All...).



A prophecy about the end time states it very clearly: "They commit harlotry continually" (Hosea 4:18Their drink is sour: they have committed whoredom continually: her rulers with shame do love, Give ye.



See All...). The sexual immorality that is prevalent in the Western world today directly contributes to the high divorce rate. People who have had multiple sexual partners before marriage are highly unlikely to settle down and commit to one partner for life after marriage—they will eventually revert to their previous bad habits.



God hates divorce—and the United States and other Western nations largely ignore Him!



Nation continues to mock God

Cal Thomas, the conservative syndicated columnist, had an article in the same paper on Aug. 13, 2010, warning the United States against further mockery of the Almighty, this time over the trend toward same-sex marriage.



"The decision by a single, openly gay federal judge to strike down the will of 7 million Californians, tradition dating back millennia [not to mention biblical commands, which the judge decided, in his capacity as a false god, to also invalidate] is judicial vigilantism equal to Roe v. Wade" ("California Ruling Shows U.S. Immorality," Lansing State Journal ).



Roe v. Wade was the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in 1973. Neither of these seismic changes to the nation's culture was approved by the majority in a democratic process.



Thomas continued: "Most great powers unravel from within before invading armies [or in America's case, terrorists] conquer them. A preacher might develop a good sermon on how nations fare when they mock God."



Later in the column, Thomas wrote: "Abraham Lincoln concluded that our Civil War might have been God's judgment for America's tolerance of slavery. If that were so, why should 'the Almighty,' as Lincoln frequently referred to God, stay His hand in the face of our celebration of same-sex marriage?"



Although there are many people in the United States and other Western nations who are trying to be faithful to their spouses, recognizing that this is what God wants and expects of those who follow Him, increasingly it seems people just do what they want to do regardless of what God says.



Thomas continued, "A nation that loses its moral sense is a nation without any sense at all. Muslim fanatics who wish to destroy us are correct in their diagnosis of our moral rot: loss of a fear of God, immodesty, especially among women, materialism and much more."



In conclusion, Cal Thomas quoted Scripture: "None of this should surprise anyone who takes the time to read and understand what happens to people and nations that disregard God... 'Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint,' which is paraphrased in the Living Bible, 'When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild' (Proverbs 29:18Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.



See All...); and 'In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit' (Judges 21:25In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.



See All...)." WNP

.

Multiculturalism Under Attack!!

An interesting article from www.wnponline.org about Mulitculturalism. This follows this post about Libya. For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Multiculturalism Under Attack


A recent controversial speech by British Prime Minister David Cameron follows similar speeches from other Western leaders calling for a rethink on the concept of multiculturalism.

by Melvin Rhodes

The famous actress was sitting on the couch reviewing the morning newspapers along with the host of the morning news program and another person. The review soon came around to a discussion of Prime Minister David Cameron's attack on multiculturalism. The actress commented that this attacked the very core of British culture! Really? Growing up in England in the 1950s and '60s, I never even heard the word "multiculturalism." Its usage began in Canada during the premiership of Pierre Trudeau in the '70s and '80s and has since spread to other Western nations. It is hardly the historic core of British values!



A number of world leaders have in recent months come out against multiculturalism. Not only Britain's prime minister Cameron, but also Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's former prime minister John Howard, Spain's former premier Jose Maria Aznar and France's president Nicolas Sarkozy have expressed concerns about integrating immigrants through multiculturalist policies (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 10, 2011).



Multiculturalism is the advocacy in Western nations of embracing all the new cultures that have moved into Western countries in recent decades. It is not the policy in most countries around the world, where preserving national identity is valued more highly.



What was the context of the British prime minister's remarks, and why did they get so much attention?



Attempting to overcome nationalism

It should first be noted that he gave his Feb. 5, 2011, speech in Munich, Germany, in the presence of the German chancellor. No speech given there has received so much media attention since Neville Chamberlain's visit to Hitler to try to achieve "peace in our time." That was more than 70 years ago, and Europe is now a very different place. Just as Chamberlain's speech was of great historic significance, so Cameron's may also turn out to be a turning point in British and European history.



In 1938, Europe was made up of many nations, each one with its own separate cultural and ethnic identity. A major problem for Europe involved overlaps—minority ethnic groups living within a different majority ethnic nation. This included Germans in both Czechoslovakia and Poland, providing Hitler with an excuse to invade these countries and plunge Europe into war. And the Holocaust perpetrated against the Jews, a long-established minority in many countries, was the most disturbing example of ethnic cleansing in history.



After two world wars devastated Europe, there was a widespread desire to minimize ethnic conflict—and this has, at length, led to the European Union. The desire to form "an ever closer union" of European nations is a direct consequence of Europe's nationalistic conflicts. The EU is intended to surmount all of this—to unite the various European countries in a supranational federal system.



Yet the European ethnic landscape has become even more diverse. As a result of the massive loss of life in World War II, European countries—their populations sorely diminished—needed labor, and immigrants were welcomed. Most of these came from colonies the European nations had ruled. And as the colonies gained independence, they in many cases experienced national economic decline while their populations nevertheless rose dramatically due to improved medical care. The result has been a surplus of people, many of whom have moved to Europe.



It was naively expected that somehow the immigrants would all become Englishmen, Frenchmen or Germans, integrating successfully in these respective nations. But the reality is that many have desired to preserve their cultural identity, which has led to considerable friction and a great deal of fear.



Americans like to think that assimilation has been more successful in the United States—a supposed "melting pot." But interestingly, on the same breakfast television program in the United Kingdom, a British man of African descent who had lived in the United States said exactly the opposite—that assimilation has worked better in Britain than in America.



As recent news reports of homegrown terror cells in the United States show, no country can boast of success when it comes to assimilation. It may have worked a century ago when most immigrants came from Europe, but it has not been so successful in Western countries since doors opened to immigration from developing nations.



The failure of assimilation led to the promotion of multiculturalism. The objective was that ethnicities would dwell among one another while remaining culturally distinct through maintaining their various traditions, customs and ways of thinking. This concept has been promoted in mass media right across the cultural spectrum—from Sesame Street to MTV! Yet it's led not to societal union but to fragmentation.



"Multiculturalism has failed"

Douglas Murray, director of the Center for Social Cohesion in London, wrote this of Cameron's speech in an article published in The Wall Street Journal: "‘Multiculturalism has failed,' said British Prime Minister David Cameron last weekend in Munich. If anybody thought they had read these words before, it is because they have. Many times. Last October German Chancellor Angela Merkel (sitting onstage with Mr. Cameron when he gave his speech on Saturday) said the same. Finally Europe's mainstream party leaders seem to be realizing what others have long noticed: Multiculturalism has been the most pernicious and divisive policy pursued by Western governments since World War II" ("Cameron's Multicultural Wake-Up Call," Feb. 9, 2011).



The same Wall Street Journal issue also editorialized in support of what Cameron said: "David Cameron gave a bracing speech about multiculturalism on Saturday, notable as much for the venue as his argument. The annual Munich Security Conference typically devotes itself to foreign policy and defense. By denouncing multiculturalism at the conference, Mr. Cameron put the subject at the center of the West's security agenda. Past time, too. The U.S., Canada and the EU are waking up to the realization that terrorism isn't simply a phenomenon that arrives from abroad . . . While undemocratic regimes may explain extremism in Egypt, they don't explain why there are ‘so many extremists in free and open societies' like the U.K." ("David Cameron's Warning," Feb. 9, 2011).



An opinion piece about the speech by American syndicated columnist Cal Thomas was published in the Lansing State Journal under the headline and drophead: "Assimilation a must for immigrants: U.S. should learn lesson from flawed British plan" (Feb. 11, 2011). The article, titled "Told You So" at Townhall.com, begins with this observation: "One of liberalism's many problems is that once an idea or program is proved wrong and unworkable, liberals rarely acknowledge their mistake and examine the root cause of their error so they don't repeat it. Take multiculturalism . . . please!"



Besides reporting on Cameron declaring state multiculturalism a failure, Thomas further wrote: "For good measure, Cameron said Britain must also get tougher on Islamic extremists. A genuinely liberal country, he said, ‘believes in certain values and actively promotes them . . . Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law, equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality."



Thomas' most astute observation was in contradiction to the speech. He wrote: "Cameron said in Britain different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives: ‘We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.' Here I would take issue with an otherwise excellent speech. It isn't that Britain has failed to provide such a society. Rather, many of those coming to Britain (and increasingly France, Germany and the U.S.) don't want to become a part of those cultures, which they regard as corrupt and anti-God."



The jumbling together of ethnic and religious groups has been a largely post–World War II phenomenon in Western countries. This is in spite of the evidence that such mixing without cultural assimilation is problematic in many parts of the world.



Take the historic conflict between Muslims and Hindus in India that led to partition in 1947; or the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has been the cause of frequent wars in the Middle East; or the frequent tribal conflicts in Africa; or the unceasing ethnic conflicts in the Balkans, which triggered the First World War, contributed to the Second and exploded again in the 1990s. Given these, one might ask why the West thought that somehow the end result of mingling different ethnic and religious groups would turn out to be different!



Some biblical perspective

There's an interesting verse in the New Testament of your Bible that stands in direct contradiction to the multicultural idea. While "God shows no partiality" (Acts 10:34), we read in the same book that "He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings" (Acts 17:26).



It is also interesting to note that Jesus Christ, when asked, "What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?" (Matthew 24:3), warned that "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom" (verse 7). A kingdom is a political entity. But the word "nation" here is translated from the Greek word ethnos, from which we get the words ethnic and ethnicity. In other words, Jesus was saying that immediately prior to His coming to establish God's Kingdom on this earth, there would be a time of great ethnic conflict—the inevitable result of mingling diverse people groups together.



David Cameron's warning, along with the earlier warning from Angela Merkel, shows a growing concern about the inevitability of conflict in Western countries—conflict that will endanger the very unity and stability of Western nations.



Thankfully, true harmony between peoples is possible through the One who gave His life for us all. Rather than maintaining our old ways, we need to develop Jesus Christ's ways of thinking and living.



Ephesians 2:14-17 said this of Christ in relation to the division between Jews and gentiles: "For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity… so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near."



When all people finally understand God's truth and humble themselves through Christ, they can at last come together as one in genuine and lasting peace and harmony. WNP