Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
For the family to succeed as a cohesive unit it must have common moral and ethical values that breed cooperation and support within the immediate and the extended family. The family values become what Eben might call "the little book" on how, in the immediate sense, to successfully live as a family, and in the ongoing, or future sense, as a training ground for children in order to properly behave and strive as adults outside the family, and how to create families of their own. The family becomes a microcosm of social and individual behavior which enables its members, especially the children, to function in the macrocosm of society at large.
Among those values which make for successful families and translate into success into the world at large would be honesty, loyalty, work ethic, love, morality, and discipline. All of which transcend the limits of family and create the "good" society--or the "fabric" of society
|
There are other traditional or conservative family "values" that I didn't mention, including two important ones. One I omitted intentionally, the other I simply forgot. I purposely did not list religious faith. Not that it's not important, but that it is no longer a persuasive "value" in the broader context of our more diverse and increasingly secular society. For a great number, of course, it still is. But, for that number, I would just be preaching to the choir. To persuade those, including Republicans or conservatives, who don't adhere to religion, particular or general, religious faith would be a traditional value of little consequence. Personally, however, though I am not religious in an organized sense, I think there is tremendous value in recognizing a fundamental order of things, of life, of existence, which should not be superseded by concocted temporal law. That's why I like the Founders use of "Creator" as a generic endower of unalienable rights. The creator, for me, doesn't have to be anthropomorphic. Without a belief in a somehow created foundational order, of some type, however vague or unknowable, we are left only with meaningless accident and the attempt to organize it by various human concoctions of government . . . rule of men (rule of people or "them" to be politically correct) over men (people, them)--but left with no such thing as an unalienable right--only rights prescribed by some people and imposed on other people. And from that, given human nature as we know it, tyranny or despotism will follow, hard or soft versions, but versions none the less.
The "value" I forgot is responsibility. Traditional family values require that family members be responsible, in general or for specific duties and behaviors. It is that particular value which might give Bernie a problem in discussing "real family values" as he put it. Being instilled with traditional family values, which among other things include honesty, loyalty, work ethic, love, morality, discipline, and personal responsibility, would make if far more difficult to be a Bernie type victim, then if people are taught by government, by demagoguery, by Marxist, socialist, progressive institutes of learning that it is their birthright (actually only a right as prescribed by government) to have and to be given things provided by others, to be entitled to assistance in living . . . taught to be helpless without direction and assistance by the state.
And isn't it that progressive socialist mentality that Bernie seems to be implying to be "real family values"? I say imply, because he doesn't actually cite any values. Just what aren't family values. And, of course, they aren't because they are not values at all.
He says
"When a mother has a baby and is unable to spend time with that child during the first weeks and months of that baby’s life, and is forced back to work because of a lack of money, that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. When a wife is diagnosed with cancer and a husband cannot get time off of work to take care of her, that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. When a mother is forced to send her sick child to school because she cannot afford to stay home with her that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. When a husband, wife, and kids, during the course of an entire year, are unable to spend any time together on vacation – that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for."
Does anyone find an iota of traditional family values in that statement? What are the "real family values" he speaks of in that statement? Is he hinting that a mother spending every hour of the first weeks and months with her newborn child is a family value? Is he saying that she is forced to work 24/7 during those weeks and months? Not only are those notions verbal caca, but he might have a problem with the women's rights votes he's trying to garner.
If a child is able to go to school, how sick is the child? Minor sickness doesn't usually require lengthy periods to recover from, and in most cases, those with "real family values" can turn to others in the immediate or extended family to help baby sit for a few days. And major illness would better be attended to in hospital.
If there are some years when a family cannot spend time together on vacation, that is an attack on everything a family is supposed to stand for? Newsflash . . . the family is spending the entire year together vacation or no. Why is it a family value that a family must spend a vacation together every year? Is this in the little book of family values?
It seems to me, that "real family values" have worth in that they instill the ability to overcome temporary setbacks. But if the setbacks are made whole, not by the family, but by the government, where is the family value in that? Could someone put a name to that value? Is government assistance a family value?
Those who have a religious faith and are in church or other likewise community, and, or, who abide by traditional family values seem to do better not only at coping with Bernie's hypotheticals, but seem to be less prone to them.
So, which family values make the family stronger and support "everything that a family is supposed to stand for." Traditional values, or government assistance? If the answer is government assistance, then what is a family supposed to stand for?
And which values make the family weaker? Do traditional family values make families weaker? If government assistance is "the real family value" what is the need for traditional values? If government assistance is the real value, why is marriage or family needed?
Hybrid Mode
