Often in the US I hear politicians as well as some religious folk proclaim this: “We need to get back to our traditional family JC values” or something very close to this. What was so great about that time period? I’ve missed the family value portion of what they are supposedly talking about in the Bible. Is there someone in particular that you try to emulate, or some family role models that qualify?
JZ
Well, aside from the fact that the “good old days” didn’t really exist, at least not in the way that they’d like to believe it did, what made the '50s so great was the post-war prosperity and relative peace. This era fell between the privation and sacrifices of WWII and the violent social changes of the Sixties. (I’m not using “violent” in the sense of “use of physical force”, although there certainly was a lot of that. I’m using “violent” in the sense of “intense change”.)
“Family values” is often a right-wing or fundamentalist code term for two-parent households, generally a man and a woman; stay-at-home mothers; the lack of acceptance of bi-racial families and homosexuality; the extreme obedience of children; and the subjugation of wives to their husbands. All of these things are found in the Bible.
That said, I think that socially, America has come too far to be able to adopt the “values” mentioned above. Women and children have far more legal rights than they had in the past, as do minorities and to some extent, gays. Also, the Religious Right is no longer the mainstream segment they once were.
As for the last question, my family is so dysfunctional that there are times I wish I wasn’t a member of it.
Robin
As near as I can figure, those JC values are things like segregation, sexism, homophobia, and selective application of the First Amendment. Hmmm…Actually, those things probably are in the Bible somewhere.
I think the models they are trying to emulate are the Cleavers and the Bradys - families that never existed.
it’s just another generic, meaningless statement (like “our children are our most valuable resource”) that nobody would, on its face, disagree with. Politicians like to say things that they know most people will agree with. Both democrats and republicans can get away with saying it, over and over again, looking good each and every time.
Quite the charicature you got going there, MsRobyn, blowero. I think I’ll try addressing the OP with a modicum of seriousness, though.
“Family values” as generally encouraged by conservative politicians typically concerns placing children as your highest priority, and trying to raise them in as wholesome environment as possible. This includes a two-parent household if at all possible, with the parents married, and an assurance that there is someone around to take care of the kids. While career moms aren’t frowned upon in and of themselves, the practice of having both parents work while leaving little Timmy in a daycare 10 hours a day from the time he’s 6 months old on up is generally frowned upon. The general philosophy is that parents need to be around, and this need should be addressed and worked out before the kids come into the picture.
It should also be noted that those preaching family values really don’t care if it’s the man, woman, or both, bringing home the bacon, as long as somebody’s around to care for the kids.
Homosexuality is, generally speaking, viewed in a negative light. However, I can’t recall ever hearing any mainstream conservative politician espouse “family values” as excluding inter-racial marriages. I think the propogation of that particular myth is another wonderful side effect of the “Republicans are evil” and “Christians are evil” philosophy that tends to float around. What, you didn’t know that republicans and christians are all bigots? I’ll tell you all about it after I get back from my cross-burning.
As far as emulating the Bradys and Cleavers, yes, that’s probably not too far from the truth. Both families demonstrated togetherness and love, and it was always clear that the parents put their children’s interests ahead of their own. The fact that the families “never existed” is irrelevant, as they still represent a good standard to try to uphold.
The “Judeo-Christian” part of this whole family values-thing represents the fact that most morals in western civilization are derived from Christianity (specifically, the New Testament). Indeed, our nation’s system of laws is based in large part on the Ten Commandments.
Jeff
Actually, there isn’t any real point debating the meaning of “family values”, just what certain politicians mean when they SAY “family values.”
As with “children are our most precious resource”, there are any number of platitudes a politician can say that most voters would agree with. “We must work together to prevent terrorism” is another. The difficulty is always in what actions are proposed to make the platitude come true. Exactly what steps do you have in mind when you say you want to promote family values, the welfare of children, or the prevention of terrorism?
Find out what the politician means by “family values”. It could be improved social safety nets to counsel families that might be suffering parental abuse, or it might mean mandatory church attendance. The phrase alone is meaningless.
Why specifically the NT since the Ten commandments are in the OT? If you believe in the Trinity, the NT God is the same as the OT. Did the perfect one, indeed, have a change of venue after all? I will certainly disagree with you that our whole moral foundation of Western civilization is based from Christianity, but more on that later. For now, how many of the Ten Commandments did this biblical God break? Wouldn’t it have been better if this biblical god could have led as an example of what to do, instead of directing us to do things he couldn’t even do? Mark Twain in his “Letters from the Earth” tells a story in which someone asks the clergyman what he must do to enter heaven. He replies one must be like the Father who art in Heaven. This person did just about every evil act imaginable, so the clergyman says that is no way to imitate the Father. The man then asks where he had erred, which causes the clergyman to change the subject,and ask what kind of weather one had been having up his way. If you’re familiar with the story, I ask you or anyone else, where did he err?
JZ
EJ: Indeed, our nation’s system of laws is based in large part on the Ten Commandments.
Actually, the main source of modern legal systems (including the US’s) is the law codes of ancient Rome, via their interpretation in the medieval European Ius Commune or Common Law. The thematic resemblances to certain of the Ten Commandments (no murder, no stealing, etc.) is apparently due less to direct influence than to the fact that there were some common principles among most ancient societies about what counts as a no-no.
The strange thing is that single parent households is nothing new in America. It’s just that today they are caused more often by divorce or never marrying. In the past, they were caused by the fact that people died so often and so young. Which is worse I’m not sure, but it’s interesting to reflect on. (Another thing: in addition to single-parent families, past times included lots lots more NO-parent families: i.e. orphans.)
—The “Judeo-Christian” part of this whole family values-thing represents the fact that most morals in western civilization are derived from Christianity (specifically, the New Testament). Indeed, our nation’s system of laws is based in large part on the Ten Commandments.—
Uh, no. Our nation’s system of civil laws are based on British common law, which has little if anything to do with Christianity in particular, and everything to do with an evolution of bussiness standards in an increasingly mercantile Europe.
Our nation’s political philosophy, off of which the Constitution and Bill of Rights are based, are likewise based on European Enlightenment philosophy. Far from being based on the TC, many people at the time saw it as a development contra-TC morality (indeed, many of its key intellectuals, like Paine, were harsh critics of Christian ideas and morals, and their ideas were harshly opposed at the time by many religious people): based on a newly developing ethic of social and political justice which stood in contrast to much of what Christian philosophies of law and punishment had previously endorsed. You know, there was a reason that so many preachers condemned the founding fathers as atheists (even though they weren’t). I’m not sure how I see you get from “thou shalt not have any gods before me” to the founders strong and principled defence of religious tolerance. Where in the constitution does it say that we must keep the sabbath holy?
Again, that’s not to say that Judeo-Christian values weren’t intimately involved in the long long history of development and intellectual theory, and didn’t play a part (along all sorts of other things), but it wasn’t exactly a key player in terms this nation’s laws and political philosophy (certainly it was less so than in other nations). Christianity played a far bigger role in American social history: and it still plays the same role today (so what’s the problem?).
But it’s sort of silly to lay claim to moral ideas like “don’t murder people” “don’t steal” as if they were in some way an exclusively Christian innovation. I also wouldn’t say that things like “turn the other cheek” or “it is harder… camel… eye of needle… than for a rich man to go to heaven” have been particularly defining ethics in our nation’s political and social history.
Well, I think Bryan already pointed out the problem with this definition. Everyone is concerned about children. However, the conservative approach to family values differs quite substantially from the liberal approach.
The conservatives emphasize what they think families themselves must do…particularly emphasizing the return to traditional structures where one parent (almost always in practice the father) worked and the other stayed home. [They tend to be vague on what single-parent families are supposed to do other than not exist.] And, a time when divorce was rarer even in the case of mental or physical abuse and when children born (although perhaps not conceived) out of wedlock was rarer. And, gays were unspoken of and of course could not raise children.
Liberals emphasize what society, mainly in the form of government, must do to create an environment that is more conducive to raising children successfully. This includes providing day care (or sufficient welfare for mothers to stay at home if they choose to), adequate health care (either directly or through laws that, say, mandate what employers must offer in terms of such benefits), and so on.
Wow, both sound just awful!
Another note: the single wage-earner family was only a tradition for the fairly well-off. For many many women, not working hasn’t ever been an option, and for many, it still isn’t.
Why specifically the NT? Because the OT talks about doing lots of things that we don’t really like to do in a civilized society. Like stoning people, sacrificing animals, you know. The NT is a little more focused on the whole peace-and-love thing, which was one of the major talking points of this guy named “Jesus”.
Uh, yes. The Ten Commandments was not the only, or even the main inspiration, for the Constitution, but it was a biggie. You seem like someone who would be familiar with the writings of the Founding Fathers, Apos. I would expect you to know how much they talked about that sort of thing.
As far as defense of religious tolerance, I would guess this has something to do with that whole fleeing-an-oppresive-and-corrupt-church-in-England thing. When you get punished for your religious beliefs, it’d be a might hypocritical to go and create a nation that punished people of different faiths, wouldn’t it? The Founding Fathers were as big a bunch of holy-rollers as you’re likely to find, but they were smart enough to realize that religious tolerance was pretty important.
Well, it would be nice if all religions and all people had an innate “don’t do bad stuff” mentality, but this isn’t the case. Some belief systems coughIslamcough don’t value life quite as much as Christianity, unfortunately. This is why conservatives specify “J-C family values”, instead of, say, “Islamic family values”, or “Satanic family values”.
jshore:
Well, not existing is preferable. By that, I mean make sure that you do everything in your power to provide a two-parent family for your children. Certainly there will be exceptions, and that’s not to say single parents are bad, but two is generally better than one.
…whereas conservatives try to encourage people to not blithely place themselves in situations where they’re going to need to rely on government handouts in order to get by. The evil bastards.
Jeff
**
So how do you explain the fact that not everyone believes in Jesus?
**
If America is based on true religious tolerance, why the need to emphasize “Judeo-Christian” values?
**
Who says Muslims don’t value life? Terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam are in the vast minority and are generally denounced by Islam as a whole. Even Christianity and Judaism have people who believe this way.
**
Okay, so let me provide a hypothetical: Let’s say my husband is an abusive alcoholic who regularly beats me and our children. Am I supposed to sacrifice my safety and the safety of the children because a two-parent family is so much better? Or to provide a milder example, let’s say one of us commits adultery. Are the children supposed to suffer in a lousy marriage?
Except that life has a funny way of biting you on the butt. I went to school with a lot of people who were out of work, through no fault of their own. Many of them (including me) were able to attend school through a government program. Was that a handout? Do you also think people unable to work because of disability or a lousy economy should be left to fend for themselves?
And you know what? My son is now in full-day daycare. He LOVES it. It gives him a chance to be stimulated more than I possibly could, and he’s meeting other kids his own age. It also gives me the chance to go to work and put food on the table. And if that’s not putting my son’s needs ahead of my own, I don’t know what is.
Robin
Clearly, you are claiming Islam places a lesser value of life. And, you also seem to be saying (based on your previous sentence) that other religions do not necessarily preach the “don’t do bad stuff” (sic) mentality. Where do you get all this information from?
I’ll pass over the religious superiority complex and get to the meat of things.
—Uh, yes. The Ten Commandments was not the only, or even the main inspiration, for the Constitution, but it was a biggie. You seem like someone who would be familiar with the writings of the Founding Fathers, Apos. I would expect you to know how much they talked about that sort of thing. —
Actually, I expect I’ve found myself another victim of Daniel Barton. Please: quote me the magical quote that demonstrates how the founders had the Ten Commandments foremost in their minds when drafting such things as the right to bear arms, an independant judiciary, the takings clause, the right not to have soldiers quartered in your house, the right to free speech, bi-cameral legislatures, and so on. Because, you know, those have so much to do with the Bible, and not, as it might seem to a neonate, to do with very pragmatic contemporary concerns and modern Enlightenment philosophy.
—As far as defense of religious tolerance, I would guess this has something to do with that whole fleeing-an-oppresive-and-corrupt-church-in-England thing.—
I would guess so too. They saw how corrupt a government linked to religion could be: how the European model was a failure. That’s why they tried something different.
—When you get punished for your religious beliefs, it’d be a might hypocritical to go and create a nation that punished people of different faiths, wouldn’t it?—
It sure would. However, the founding fathers and the colonists in general weren’t at the time fleeing England for religious freedom. They were breaking away from political and economic subservience.
—The Founding Fathers were as big a bunch of holy-rollers as you’re likely to find, but they were smart enough to realize that religious tolerance was pretty important.—
You shame them by pretending that their defence of tolerance was simply a pragmatic idea to avoid looking like hypocrites. On the contrary, it was one of the deepest and most passionately defended principles they had.
And how exactly were they holy rollers? Some of the signatories were indeed Christians: but that hardly means that their government was particularly shaped by Christian values anymore than the way they put on their shoes. And the main players, the architects, the thinkers, the ring-leaders? Jefferson? Madison? Adams? Washington? Paine? Franklin? The consumate Deists? The men so unwilling to shill for Christianity that they were all accused, will sincerity, of being atheists? You’ve been choking on some pretty revisionist history it seems.
If this were the case, worshipping “false gods”, idolatry, and blasphemy would be illegal, not constitutionally protected as freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Which part of the Commandments inspired which part of the Constitution, and how? The Ten Commandments don’t say anything about forms of government, rules for law making, or anything of that nature; the Constitution doesn’t mention any specific crimes except treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. I guess piracy is a violation of “Thou shalt not steal”, but it’s a hell of a stretch.
You have any cites for that? Be advised there are a lot of bogus quotations floating around out there, so we’re going to want something along the lines of “James Madison, in a letter to Ignatius Hergensheimer of June 14, 1804, The Collected Writings of James Madison, Volume XIV, p. 1839”, not “I heard it on the radio somewhere”.
The Founding Fathers did not sail over in the Mayflower or land at Plymouth Rock. The men who rebelled against Great Britain and established the United States hadn’t fled religious oppression, most of them were born here. Not all of the colonies were founded for religious reasons–the founding of New York or Virginia (and several others) had nothing in particular to do with religion. New England was mainly settled by people fleeing religious oppression, and you know what? They were hypocrites who persecuted other people of different faiths. (The Puritans hanged Quakers.)
No, many of the leading lights of the Revolutionary Era were Deists who believed that religious liberty is very important.
Ugh. Are you serious with that Islam-bashing crap?
**ElJeffe wrote:
Well, it would be nice if all religions and all people had an innate “don’t do bad stuff” mentality, but this isn’t the case. Some belief systems coughIslamcough don’t value life quite as much as Christianity, unfortunately. This is why conservatives specify “J-C family values”, instead of, say, “Islamic family values”, or “Satanic family values”.**
Could you please provide a list of which specific religions (either World or traditional) that don’t have some doctrine about “don’t do bad stuff” ?
—Some belief systems coughIslamcough don’t value life quite as much as Christianity, unfortunately.—
I think there is a fair bit of violence and resentment even in Jesus’ teachings. I understand that people deny this, and write it off as misunderstanding, but what’s not deniable is that the long history of what has been called Christianity put into practice (whatever your opinion on the legitimacy of the interpretation or the sincerity) has bourne plenty of violence and its various persecutions, civil wars, and so on. Defining Islam as violent or careless with human life runs into exactly the same problem: there’s plenty of violence done in the name of what is called Islam too, but do some aspects of it in practice define it as a whole?
If Christianity is less violent and controlling today, I would say that this is because it has been domesticated over the centuries: Islam hasn’t been around quite as long, or had to compete and later come into accord with the compelling forces of Enlightenment ideals and modernist civilization, the capitalist middle class and their values, religious tolerance, and so on. It exists in a core of still mostly pre-industrial societies. But the Christianity of today is not the Christianity of yesteryear: and the Islam today may well progress similarly. Let’s hope.
Of course, we’re probably giving religion yet again too much credit: there’s a lot more to violence than just what religion is predominant.