The Article Archives
Topic: Truth in Culture Weekly Commentaries
|
The High Cost of Immorality
April 21, 2008
S. Michael Craven
 
For more than five decades, self-proclaimed experts and so-called sexual reformers, beginning with Alfred Kinsey, have worked to advance the belief that there are no public consequences to private sexual behavior. And Americans, for the most part, have bought into this notion, proving what Lenin said, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth!”
This ideological offensive, which gained traction during the sexual revolution of the 1960s, led to the erosion of all prior social and legal boundaries, which restrained sex to monogamous marriage. This exclusive union—which strictly limited the acceptable relationship for sex and esteemed the traditional family—was reinforced through the stigmatization of sex outside of marriage and the criminalization of certain acts.
Historically, most states in the US had legal prohibitions against adultery, often called “crimes against marriage,” which were designed to protect marriage by punishing those who jeopardized the family by seeking sexual satisfaction beyond their spouse. Virtually every advanced civilization has had some form of prohibition against adultery. Granted, these have not always been evenly applied to both husband and wife including within Christianized cultures, despite the fact that Scripture equally condemns both male and female offenders.
Today, the enforceability of criminal sanctions for adultery is problematic in light of Supreme Court decisions since 1965 relating to privacy and sexual intimacy. However, this right of privacy never existed until Kinsey asserted that there were no public consequences to private sexual behavior.
Similarly, most states had laws against fornication, which criminalized sex between unmarried persons. In 2001, Jesse McClure was convicted under Georgia’s fornication law. When McClure was 16, he was caught having sex with his girlfriend in her bedroom. The girl’s mother reported the incident to her daughter’s probation officer, who then brought charges. McClure was ordered to pay a $200 fine and write an essay explaining why he should not have engaged in sex. Instead, he wrote that it was not the business of the court to know why. As McClure told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Invading personal privacy just isn’t right.”
In 2003, the Georgia Supreme Court threw out McClure’s conviction. Chief Justice Norman Fletcher wrote, “The government may not reach into the bedroom of a private residence and criminalize the private, noncommercial, consensual sexual acts of two persons legally capable of consenting to those acts.”
ACLU attorney Catherine Sanderson, who represented McClure, insisted the issue is again one of privacy and therefore, “no longer does the state have any say in regulating private sexual activity between consenting persons of legal age.” Journalists and others heralded this as a “great victory” for civil liberties calling such laws “relics of a Calvinist past,” “a stupid law,” and “ancient” -- the implication being that we will all be better off now that we can legally have sex with whomever we want!
While only a handful of states maintain fornication and adultery laws on the book, none actually enforce these statutes and most people today would likely regard any attempt to do so as ridiculous. But are they right? Are there, in fact, no public consequences to any private sexual behavior? If there are, does the individual’s right to privacy trump the greater good of society?
First, our right to privacy does not extend to any and every consensual behavior. For example, one cannot evade conviction for the possession and use of illegal narcotics on the basis of using them in the privacy of one’s own home. Illegal drug use has enormous societal consequences in both human and economic terms. Therefore, it becomes an essential role of government to intervene [over and against the right to privacy] in effort to preserve and promote public safety and well-being among its citizenry.
Secondly, contrary to the propaganda of the last five decades; there is recent data which demonstrates there is in fact a public consequence to certain private sexual behaviors. In first-ever research, a scholarly study, entitled The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States quantifies a minimum $112 billion annual taxpayer cost from high rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing. This amounts to more than $1 trillion in taxpayer expense over the last decade that is directly attributable to marital breakdown and out-of-wedlock births.
“These costs are due to increased taxpayer expenditures for anti-poverty, criminal justice and education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals whose adult productivity has been negatively affected by increased childhood poverty caused by family fragmentation,” according to Ben Scafidi, Ph.D., one of the study’s authors and economics professor at Georgia College & State University.
Add to this, the highest rates of sexually transmitted disease among all other industrialized nations, the highest rates of teen pregnancies, the largest producing and consuming nation of pornography, the highest rape rates, and more than 40 million abortions since 1972 and one must be willfully blind to suggest that there are no public consequences to any private sexual behavior.
By first accepting sexual activity outside of monogamous marriage, the legal and social structures, which served to protect and promote marriage were either weakened or eliminated. As sex was increasingly separated from marriage, marriage became less and less necessary. Alternative family forms such as single-parent, cohabitating and most recently same-sex came to be merely modern family “options” equal to the traditional two-parent family. I understand that single-parenthood is a pervasive reality, and that these single-parents are working as hard if not harder than any other parent to raise and care for their children. So, I am not denigrating these families by asserting that the traditional family is superior. The two-parent family is by every objective standard, both today and throughout history, the best possible arrangement. I’m sure most single-parents would be the first to agree.
Suffice it to say, divorce and out-of-wedlock birthrates all skyrocketed as society separated sex from marriage, demonstrating there is a devastating public consequence (or cost) to private sexual behavior, apparently more than $112 billion a year!
As God’s called people we are to demonstrate the reign of God. This is a significant area in society where we can begin to act as a redemptive influence by living under God’s rule related to sex and the family. Of course this means that Christians stop divorcing at the same or greater rate than those outside the church. It means that Christians stop cohabitating, that they remain chaste until marriage and that Christians stop “struggling” with pornography and actually flee sexuality immorality—three vices within the church that are near equal in scale to those outside the church! If we do this then we can proclaim that Christ changes us!
By living in obedience in these areas we can once again advance the establishment of social and legal structures that promote and protect marriage as the only acceptable relationship for sex. This is not mere moralizing on the part of simple “religious folk” but the answer to a pressing social problem that, as the evidence demonstrates, has enormous human, social and economic costs.
© 2008 by S. Michael Craven
|
|
Responses
|
|
Response from : Greg Williams |
|
|
|
April 21, 2008 9:50 AM
|
|
Mr. Craven
Another excellent article! Actually if you look at the personal and social ills of our culture (including the so-called church) you will find that at least 75%, and probably closer to 90%+ of them are rooted in unhealthy relationships and sexual immorality. I don't know if I've shared with you but I'm the director of an Abstinence until Marriage/Healthy Relationship program (see URL above) funded by CBAE funds through the Health and Human Services Dept. of the US Govt. While I'm strongly opposed to large, socialistic govt., the Lord has led me to this position (where within the last 6 years we've also started a part-time ministry - IP315 Ministries based on I Peter 3:15 which deals with these issues on a much deeper level and are currently working on dealing with a relationship seminar for the corporate world that deals with the impact on the workplace and the 'bottom line').
If you look a little deeper at Kinsey (a great book that you may be aware of is Dr. Judith Reismann's, "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences"), it was his goal to remove all legal, religious, moral and educational boundaries to sex and his "junk science" was totally biased in order to do so! Anyone who disagreed (and there were many) was totally shut out! We are certainly reaping the fallout and as you well know it took a huge concerted effort of higher education, media and govt. to pull this off!
His Kinsey Institute at Indiana Univ. was founded in 1938 with funding from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and when they decided it was time to bow out guess who stepped in - Mr. Hugh Hefner of Playboy fame (no Real Wisdom but certainly no idiot in the world's wisdom as he had a tailored made program to lead youth right into his porn empire), along with the support of the new "experts" in "sex education - the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS).
This all started in 1908 (one century ago) when a meeting of all the media, govt. and educational "powers that be" gathered in DC with the sole intent and purpose to rid America of its Christian moorings! They decided to follow the Russian communist party playbook of tearing youth away from their Christian teachings and they knew they couldn't directly attack the Church or marriage as it would be too obvious and they were both too strong at the time. Their plan (in both countries)? Pull the youth away their God-ordained authorities (not their terminology but they at least understood the thinking) by creating a culture that caused them to rebel against parents, church and essentially all authority (with govt. being the only one that could "save" them - sound socialistic at all?) and the plan to do so was through immoral sexuality (beginning with fornication - sex outside marriage)! You think the 'proof is in the pudding' that satan's plan has worked!?!
The Reece Commission of the mid-50s exposed all of this and the Senate allowed him to release all of several thousand files to the public as to what had gone on throughout their plan over nearly 50 years. The catch - the only files they couldn't release to the public - The Kinsey Files!
Wonder why? Because they knew this was the core that could give them the success they wanted! Truly a spiritual battle that the Church has almost completely ignored and missed - and continues for the most part to miss!!! And look at the outcomes, as you alluded to, in regard to the breakdown and immorality being every bit as devastating in the church as in culture!
Thanks for your work and ministry and God bless in Christ!
http://www.heritageofky.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Dr. S. E. Cregier |
|
|
|
April 21, 2008 3:59 PM
|
|
Mike: thought this might be of interest. An atheist puzzles over Xians. sec
This article appeared in the Guardian on Monday September 12 2005 on p31 of the Debate & comment section. It was last updated at 00:01 on September 12 2005.
Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.
The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.
The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.
Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.
The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.
Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.
Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.
Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.
The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.
It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity ŕ la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.
The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. [He seems unaware of the origin of this. It's John 8:32. And of course it fails dismally when highjacked by "relativists"]. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.
· comment@guardian.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Shannon Polo |
|
|
|
April 21, 2008 11:10 PM
|
|
I loved this article. I need to know how Christians should deel with substance abuse within or without their family.
http://shanwithaneedle.myspace.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : christine |
|
|
|
April 22, 2008 6:39 PM
|
|
This is an excellent article which struck me s the 't'ruth' which needs to be told to all christians. In this wofld we live in the confusion which reigns over whether Divorce is rifgt and wheyher it is ok to co habit if not married but committed to each other is very much an issue. Especially when Churches pass their own laws about cohabiting being ok if in a committed monogomous relationshipor gay ministers being allowed etc. This confuses Christians and sends wrong messages that what christians do in private is then condoned and leads people into sexual immorality.These laws passed by the church then filter on to the young people who then are swayed to follow thse paths by misguided information. Jesus saiid that anyone who leads these little ones astray will be punished.The church as awhole needs to get its act together and not conform to the secular ideals of this world. The leaders of the churches are more accountable and need to take on the responsibity of teaching directly from God's Word' and hold srong to these teachings.
http://83850
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : John Garrett |
|
|
|
April 22, 2008 11:01 PM
|
|
"If we do this then we can proclaim that Christ changes us!"
Since we are not doing this, at least at a better rate than the secular world, then what does that reveal about Christ's reign within our "American" christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Sandy |
|
|
|
April 23, 2008 1:10 AM
|
|
Thanks Michael we should be refreshed in our minds and go back to the first love of Christ who is holy and He doesn't mince His words.
Thanks and go on,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Rev Roy Doran |
|
|
|
April 23, 2008 7:35 AM
|
|
I thank God for your comments.
These are real issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Mark Benfele |
|
|
|
April 23, 2008 7:54 AM
|
|
I know of this first hand it has taken me years for to come to grips with
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Brett |
|
|
|
April 23, 2008 8:19 AM
|
|
Interesting, well-written, with good facts. Unfortunately, those of us who grew up in, and then replicated, a wildly disfunctional "family" complete with an addict and an abuser as parents/spouse... I would assert that Mr Green needs to live in such an environment for 10-20 years and THEN tell us his thoughts and theories.
Lets have his spouse spit on his masculinity, ridicule his ability as a wageearner, and refuse to clean herself for weeks on end.... refuse to clean the house...
Then, Mr Green, after living with that for 10 weeks, brace yourself for 10 years, and see what that does to your hypothesis...
Just some simple rambling thoughts from a middle-aged suburban bookkeeper!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Shareese |
|
|
|
April 23, 2008 9:22 AM
|
|
Thank you for writing this. I am going through a divorce. That's all I am allowed to say.
Did you know that there has been absolutly no research done the the affects of sexual addictions relating to parenting? None! I would love to see some articles and research done on this subject.
How do we help change society's views, the courts views for that matter? This subject matter hurts the children involved. It's a crime!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Sally Eastman |
|
|
|
April 23, 2008 10:06 AM
|
|
Hi there,
Boy does this hit the nail right smack on the head. I wish that everyone would get a grasp of this. My friend and I were just talking about when we were young and we had morals in our country. To be pregnant out of wedlock was a total disgrace. The reputation of a young lady was ruined if it were known that she had sex and the guy was known as a rebel. Homosexuality was taboo and a person considered a freak if it was hinted that they were such.
God help our country and us as indiviuals.
http://Rhody
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : virgie |
|
|
|
April 23, 2008 8:39 PM
|
|
sin has always serious consequences and this article has to be taught in every church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Tobias Dimoji |
|
|
|
April 24, 2008 5:36 AM
|
|
After reading this article, I am beginning to think that the church of Jesus Christ is facing the same problem everywhere. I live in Nigeria and I know that we battle with the same problem daily. People tend to think that what they do in private is their business but alas it is not so.
No laws, regulations or decrees will change a man however. Until we decide to take the word of God serious, the world will see no difference between those who call on the name of the Lord and those who don't.
Thanks for a wonderful article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Mary M. Carter |
|
|
|
April 27, 2008 5:56 PM
|
|
That's a good one, Michael. I am con-cerned about our Methodist Youth group.
One girl, daughter of the leader, delivered a baby out of wedlock. Another
girl, also a daughter of another leader,
lived with her boyfriend. When she
ditched him for another guy, the first
one shot them both! He had made threats
which the girl had relayed to police, but because the threats had not been
made in the presence of the deputy, they
did nothing. Subsequently, a law has
been passed to enable police to act.
But I'm convinced that if the mother had
refused to let her daughter live with the guy in the first place, the murders
would not have ocurred. I think I'll
forward your e-mail to these folks. It
might give them a wake-up call on their
duties to warn their kids of sexual pitfalls. Thanks for your insight!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Sally MCGIRK |
|
|
|
May 5, 2008 10:39 PM
|
|
I don't think the television talk shows and Hollywood celebrities do society any favors biblically.
Oprah and Jeremiah Wright
Has the Minister Louis Farrakhan (born Louis Eugene Walcott), Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Reverend Al Sharpton or Reverend Jesse Jackson ever reprimanded Oprah for her relationship with Stedman? Is her relationship with Stedman biblical? Are they married? Did Stedman sign a prenuptial agreement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response from : Sally MCGIRK |
|
|
|
May 6, 2008 4:59 PM
|
|
A popular sexual immorality game show with Christians today is...
”It’s only sin if I/you/we/they get or he/she gets caught”
Lights in the World
Philippians 2:12
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respond to This Article
Navigation Key
|
