On Hannity & Colmes, Coulter continues attack on single motherhood, calling it "a recipe to create criminals, strippers, rapists, murderers"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, Ann Coulter defended a statement in her new book, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America -- that children whose parents divorce are "future strippers" -- as "something that needs to be said," later saying of her book's contention that the children of divorces would become strippers: "Yes, and they will be, and that is a fact." Coulter also referred to single motherhood as "a recipe to create criminals, strippers, rapists, murderers."
On the January 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter defended inflammatory and offensive comments she makes about single mothers and children whose parents divorce in her new book, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America. Coulter referred to one statement in the book -- that children whose parents divorce are "future strippers" -- as "something that needs to be said," later saying of her book's contention that the children of divorces would become strippers: "Yes, and they will be, and that is a fact." Also during her Hannity & Colmes interview, immediately after saying, "I don't insult single mothers," Coulter referred to single motherhood as "a recipe to create criminals, strippers, rapists, murderers," echoing her statement in Guilty that "[s]ingle motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts." After co-host Alan Colmes challenged Coulter by saying of single mothers, "So you're insulting them," Coulter replied, "No, I am insulting single motherhood, which is avidly promoted by the left."
According to her website, Coulter is scheduled to be interviewed during both the 7 a.m. and 10 a.m. ET hours of the January 7 edition of NBC's Today, after reports on January 5 that her scheduled January 6 appearance on that show had been canceled. Media Matters for America has documented that NBC has repeatedly provided Coulter a platform to spew her inflammatory rhetoric even as NBC-affiliated hosts and anchors -- including Today co-hosts Meredith Vieira and Matt Lauer -- have expressed disapproval of her statements or criticized the media for promoting her.
From Coulter's website:
From the January 5 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: Now, look, let's talk about -- let's talk about your book. How about that?
COULTER: I would love to.
COLMES: All right. Now, you talk about "Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and --
COULTER: Yes.
COLMES: -- social outcasts."
COULTER: Yes.
COLMES: So you're putting down single mothers.
COULTER: What I am saying --
COLMES: "We have a term for youngsters involved in children of divorces, or as I call them, future strippers."
COULTER: What I am saying is --
COLMES: How sensitive of you.
COULTER: Yes, it's very sensitive. Well, and it's something that needs to be said. What I'm saying is there is no better example of victimizers who are treated like victims than single mothers. This was not an accident that the illegitimacy rate has gone up 300 percent since 1970. This was a plan by liberals. Liberals claim --
COLMES: Wait, wait. Liberals want the rates to go up?
COULTER: They hate marriage, yes. And as I document --
COLMES: Liberals hate marriage. Wait a minute. Let me just take my ring off, OK?
[...]
COLMES: You go after single motherhood, and then you go after Barack Obama and Halle Berry and Alicia Keys and what you call "matinee idol Barack Obama" --
COULTER: Matinee idol.
COLMES: -- for dissing their fathers and having their mothers raise them.
COULTER: No, dissing their mothers who raised them while -- right --
COLMES: Well, insulting the women who struggled to raise them --
COULTER: Right.
COLMES: -- when you insult single mothers by saying they're strippers and they're --
COULTER: I don't insult single mothers.
COLMES: -- it's a recipe to create criminals.
COULTER: It is a recipe --
COLMES: You're insulting them.
COULTER: -- no, it is a recipe to create criminals, strippers, rapists, murderers --
COLMES: So you're insulting them.
COULTER: No, I am insulting single motherhood, which is avidly promoted by the left. And they are --
COLMES: But that's what you are accusing Barack of doing.
COULTER: No, those are different chapters and completely different points. You are conflating two things that have nothing to do with one another. The point is, in -- on the Alicia Keys and Barack Obama, it is that all of these children of a black father who abandoned them and a white mother who raised them, they all identify with the ethnicity of their black fathers to establish victimhood status in America.
COLMES: And you accuse them of insulting --
COULTER: Because that is how you get ahead in America, by being a victim.
COLMES: And you accuse them of insulting the women who struggled to raise them.
COULTER: Correct.
COLMES: Yet you have insulted them by calling them strippers.
COULTER: No, I didn't call the mothers strippers.
HANNITY: Oh, my goodness.
COULTER: I said that this is a recipe for creating -- and it is, it is a fact --
COLMES: Oh, their kids are strippers. OK.
COULTER: Yes, and they will be, and that is a fact. You liberals pretend you care about facts.
COLMES: I am "you liberals."
COULTER: We have 30 years of analysis on what -- on what single motherhood produces, and it produces crime.
Coulter being the victim (at least acting that way) has certainly gotten her ahead. She must be a "liberal."
Another intersting theory from Annie-Christ, but most of the strippers I ever met came from solid nuclear families, mostly religious and conservative. My informal survey may have been skewed by growing up in the conservative area that I did, but I think AC may at least want to consider this in the course of her rigorous research.
Besides, what's so wrong about strippers? They are using the free market to produce wealth!
Good point, they seem to be easily lumped in with murderers, rapists and generic criminals. Do conservatives want to outlaw exotic dancing entrpreneurs? Strippers also generally follow very conservative tax plans.
Notice how Coulter tried to play a fast one with her definition of single mothers on H&C?
Though in her book she was clearly referring to divorcees, on the show she tried to slide it off as if she meant single mothers who had illegitimate children, a more reasonable issue.
It was subtle, but it was there. This is classic Coulter behavior, this shifting the issue in the face of criticism. When she gets heat for her broad, ridiculous statements, she tries to alter the focus, and then gets defensive about how anyone can dispute her, in this case, over the problems of illegitimacy.
she will be on NBC Wend, Drudge wins, easy to be an idiot has lost
If you think a strawman wins, you're a bigger idiot than you think I am.
Not to worry, Coulter always speaks in useless chiches and reduces any complicate situation into so silly statement she can understand. My mother, a single parent for years due to the death of my father, was a great mother, worked 3 jobs to keep a family of 5 childrne clothed and fed, worked in fruit orchards, packing plants and as a maid at righ people's special occassions. Most days, I saw my mom for about half an hour before all of her kids had to leave to catch a school bus. How dare this silly woman make any comment about single mothers, many with many many overtime hours spend with their children to give them a break when the father is absent, for whatever the reason. Coulter is a mean, disgusting and hateful woman!!!!
I can't follow her thinking. Is she saying that "liberals" cause divorce, or only liberal women get divorced , or only liberals are single mothers, and therefore only liberals become "strippers", "rapist" and "murderers!???". WOW, and this muddled trash is considered worthy of print and airtime on TV, and a host on CBS considers some of her "complaints" to be legitimate but says her form obscures her points???? MSM liberal bias my ass!!! I think it insanity to promote insanity. Like Ms. Maddow I need someone to talk me down from this!!!
I think she means that every time legislation appears to condemn single-motherhood, liberals vote against it.
All good conservatives know that single motherhood should be illegal, and women who choose to have children should be forced into marriage.
and women who choose to have children should be forced into marriage.
And those who loose their husbands thru death, drugs or other reasons are also bad mothers and should be forced to marry. It is single motherhood she attacks, or is it just the choice? No conservatives ever make that choice?
It's pitiful that the media give voice to this wretch simply to fill air time and promote their ratings. Y 'all tune in next to hear the hateful wretch. Next week the boy who ate his mother, don't miss it.
Conservatives never make that choice because they are perfect. (Unless they are Jews, in which case they need to be 'perfected')
Women who lost their husbands for any reason are only single mothers because God decided that their children should grow up to be rapists or murderers. This is God's will, and we must not question it. Instead, we must demonize these (mostly non-white) mothers and their children.
I can't follow her thinking. Is she saying that "liberals" cause divorce, or only liberal women get divorced...
No, what she tried to do on H&C was make it look like she was talking about single mothers and "illegitimacy." But in her book, yes, she was talking about mere divorcees.
I'm amazed that she always gets away with this type of equivocation tactic-- nobody seems to ever notice it, even MMFA here. She changed her slant, then ran with it all the way through the segment.
I don't think this part is in the clip, but it was priceless. As Annie was going off on some crazed "Liberals hate marriage, marriage is the most important thing in life to conservatives" babble, Colmes noted that if she loved marriage so much she would have been married by now. I'd like a freeze frame of Coulter's face at that moment. She looked like she was puking & crying at the same time.
OT, but catch Colmes appearance on Colbert's show from last night (his new co-host!)
Any press is good press, this is how she makes money, and the more media outlets cover her, the more she makes. This includes mediamatters. Ingore this person all together and she will go away.
COLMES: Oh, their kids are strippers. OK.
COULTER: Yes, and they will be, and that is a fact. You liberals pretend you care about facts.
well, crap. and here i thought my career was all set. now i have to go learn to dance and strip. trust me, this is not something anyone will want to see and i can't imagine how i'll be able to make a living at it.
Yah gotta learn to sell the sizzle, not the steak. And where to hide the stake of course.
true. after all there were middle aged fat guys stripping in "the full monte" so i suppose i could... wait, i just grossed myself out. no, won't do. simply will not do. nobody is going to pay to see this. i've never been good at the booty shake thingy so i'm left with crime. right then, off i go to the nearest bank.
He should have his HS Diploma by then...I think you need one to be a stripper.
To start the New Year off properly..Imagine this, Annie Coulter stripping.
dude! that is just wrong. no one needs that image in their head with an entire year in front of them.
Then don't watch this footage of Coulter striiping (or a reasonable approximation)
That image is almost enough to make Joe the Plumber want to pay his 'taxes'
If these children really have no control over their fate of becoming criminals, strippers, rapists, murderers, then aren't they actually "victims"?
The use of victims as scapegoats is an approved neocom tactic. Their so much easier to trash than oppressor types, safer to. There's so little possiblity that they can hit back.
All but three of 23 recent studies found some family structure effect on
crime or delinquency. Seven of the eight studies that used nationally
representative data, for example, found that children in single-parent or
other non-intact family structures were at greater risk of committing criminal or
delinquent acts. For example: A study using Add-Health data found that even after controlling for
race, parents' education, and income, adolescents in single-parent families
were almost two times more likely to have pulled a knife or a gun on someone in
the past year. (Todd Michael Franke 2000)
Six of seven studies that looked at whether overall rates of single
parenthood affected average crime rates found that changes in family
structure were related to increases in crime. For example:
· A study that looked at the relation between divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birthrates and violent crime between 1973 and 1995 found that nearly 90% of the change in violent crime rates can be accounted for by the change in percentages of out-of-wedlock births. (Mackey and Coney 2000, p. 352)
· A study that looked at crime in rural counties in four states concluded,
"[A]n increase of 13% in female-headed households would produce a doubling
of the offense rate." (Osgood and Chambers 2000, p. 103)
Even after controlling for income, family structure is an important predictor of crime and delinquency. Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy
says, "Results like these are a reality check for people such as Peggy Drexler ("Raising Boys Without Men") who argue that it is only poverty, and not father absence, that hurts children. Boys are hardwired to grow into men. But they are not hardwired to grow into good family men. That's a job for mothers and fathers working together."
A survey of 108 rapists undertaken by Raymond A. Knight and Robert A. Prentky revealed the 60 percent came from female-headed homes,. 70 percent of those describable as 'violent' came from female-headed homes. 80 percent of those motivated by 'displaced anger' came from female-headed (single-parent) homes.
"No-Fault Divorce: Proposed Solutions to a National Tragedy," 1993 Journal of Legal Studies 2, 19, citing R. Knight and R. Prentky, The Developmental Antecedents and Adult Adaptations of Rapist Subtypes, 14 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR 403-426 (1987).
Of the juvenile criminals who are a threat to the public, three-fourths came from broken homes.
Ramsey Clark, Crime in America: Observations on Its Nature, Causes, Prevention and Control (New York: Pocket Books, 1970), p.39. Cited in Amneus, The Garbage Generation
There is more. See
http://www.divorcereform.org/crime.html
AA:
No one argues with the fact that single parenting is not the idea way to go. But a good argument gets lost in the shuffle when a pathetic piece of crap like Gangleskank hijacks it.
Of course, if your side is happy having her as the face of your movement, then ...
sgd,
Too much energy is wasted on criticizing the messenger. If you don't like Coulter that is fine with me. The issues here do not have a side, unless your side is for more single parenting.
Coulter is inveighing against divorce, and not just the traditional conservative target, the (black) welfare mother. Besides creating a ridiculous cause and effect that is at odds with middle American experience, her core point--that divorce is bad for kids--is not anew idea. It is, moreover, a bromide that America does not need to hear from a never-married dortysomething who wears a cocktail dress at 6 in the morning.
I personally am of the opinion that the key to a better society is the revival and encouragement of the extended family: grandparents, aunts and uncles--which helps couples stay together (when they're not dysfunctional), teaches kids a sense of history and a sense of belonging.
A single parent is a stress on a kid--but so is a two-worker household, and so is a childhood spent in frequent moves.
We've done an awful lot of bad things to our kids--but the question is what to do about them.
I think that maybe a better-networked world will make it easier for families to avoid scattering all over the earth. But Ann just likes bashing liberals.
She's not serious--and she's certainly not funny.
pbg,
Beauty, like humor, is in the eye of the beholder. Coulter makes me laugh as she skewers liberals.If you don't like her, it is fine with me.
America needs to hear from someone about the societal ills caused by single parenthood. It would be nice if someone on the left would also speak out. Instead serial marriages by celebrities and glorification by "people" magazines and "entertainment" tv shows glamorize the single parent lifestyle.
Many single parents already do rely on the grandparents to help raise the kids. I do believe Obama's grandmother gave him lots of help as a child. Yes, grandparents can help offset the negative impact of single parenthood.
America needs to hear from someone about the societal ills caused by single parenthood.
Hey Sherlock - in case you missed it, America already knows about this. What we need is more helpful action, not more pontificating, which I guess is all you need to make yourself feel better.
Hey fog,
What helpful action are you engaged in or are you just pontificating?
Kyle,
What makes you think she is promiscuous?
In case Kyle doesn't see this, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet;
Engaging in outrageous, shameless behavior in order to get attention ( positive or negative)
Obvious physical signs of alcohol/ drug abuse
Insecure/narcissistic personality type
Not likely to win men over with her "charm" or "personality"
It would be shocking to find out that Coulter did have a moderate to sensible sexual history
What makes you think she is promiscuous?
Just because someone has a "fling" with TV network executives or producers that happen to advance her career doesn't mean she is promiscuous. Perhaps she just likes to have fun with wealthy powerful men.
Obviously you did not name anyone so there is nothing backing your assertion.
You do not do your side any favors by purposely spreading rumors and engaging in unsupported character assasination.
AA:
Nice job as usual trying to set up a strawman, but no sale. No one is advocating for more single parenting. And your 30-year old statistics just don't cut it. There's anecdotal evidence that good kids from good two-parent homes go bad also.
And like it or not, loudlouth losers like Limbaugh and Coulter are becoming the public face of the conservative movement. It's just a little too funny getting lectures on sociology and morals from the likes of :
*Coulter ... never married, acts like the antithesis of what we're told a Christian is supposed to be ...
*Limbaugh ... married/divorced four times, addicted to drugs and breaking the law while loudly pointing fingers and telling us what should be done with drug addicts and lawbreakers ...
*Newt Gingrich, who served his first wife divorce papers while she was in the hospital receiving cancer treatment, and was also boinking a staff member while married and trying to impeach a President for something similar.
Come on, AA. If you're going to point fingers and lecture, get some better lecturers.
SG,
Speaking of the straw man, no one is asserting children of "two parent homes go bad also". As I explained there is more recent evidence supporting Coulter's claim.
If you are in support of two parent homes why are you attacking Coulter? it appears you are in agreement.
I'm curious, who tells you "what a Christian is supposed to be"?
I am not defending Gingrich but you are in error. The myth about Gingrich serving his wife divorce papers is false. The divorce procedings started before long before she went into the hospital.
Again you are in error. The impeachment of Clinton was over his obstruction of justice and perjury to a grand jury. Read the articles of impeachment.
Anyone can point to others who have come up short as far as personal behavior is concerned.
So by my count, you have engaged in a straw man argument yourself and filled the rest of your note with erroneous facts. My friend I do believe three fingers are pointing back at you. :-)
The messenger is very important in this case. Coulter has repeatedly demonstrated that the only cause she is passionate about is making herself rich and famous. She offers no solutions and the only thesis she has about why there are problems is that "The liberals caused them." Her opinion on any matter of serious political or social concern is of no more worth than Larry the Cable Guy's. But Larry knows he's doing schtick, Anne seems to think she is some sort of expert with credibility.
It's a chicken and egg thing. Single parenthood makes it harder to raise kids but poverty and lack of opportunity make single parenthood and related problems more likely.
Please explain what you mean by "Lack of opportunity".
You can't be serious...
You are? That makes me a little sad.
False sanctimony does not suit you. :-)
False sanctimony... AA
Nah, just a bit of pity.
OB,
Funny thing is that I still doubt your sincerity.
Your original post was silly to start. I only asked for wookie to give his definition. Why that makes you sad is laughable.
Of course he's serious, OB.
Thankfully, his side just got their butts whooped for the second straight election, so their numbers are dwindling ... :)
Even assuming all of this is true, what do you suggest? Forced marriage? It's very easy to say that people should find partners and develop healthy relationships, but it's really not that simple in reality.
No I am not suggesting forced marriage. Far from it. I wonder why you would even think that?
As a society we have to stop glamorizing singleparenthood and premarital sex. We need to promote commitment and help married couples work out their problems before the marriages disintegrate. We need to teach our young girls that they need to save themselves for marriage and let them understand the very real negative consequences of sex outside marriage.
Many people here criticize what are deemed "old fashioned values" and religion, but those values can lead to more permanent relationships.
I'm sure everyone here knows someone who for good reason is a single mother, that in itself is a sad fact of life. Somehow men need to learn how to become better husbands and fathers. Something has gone wrong in society when people opt out of a marriage commitment when they have children.
I know as well as anyone how hard it is to stay married in today's world. It takes an almost unshakable commitment to stay married during bad times. It is the children who suffer most when they are relegated to single parent homes.
I'm not saying you were suggesting forced marriage. I just don't see what else there is. You don't think that people already encourage commitment? You think that parents tell their children that they should have kids out of wedlock or get divorced when reconciliation is possible? It's not a desirable position to be in to begin with. If there's really nothing that can be done about it, why talk about it?
I've often heard the argument that 80% of people are religious, therefore it's a Christian country. If that were to be true, how does that factor into the 50% divorce rate? Obviously "old fashioned values and religion" isn't cutting it.
Brab,
I may be wrong, but I think 80% of the people consider themselves "Christian". I think you'll agree most Christians are not very religious.
One of the sad realities of Christianity is the fragmentation of Protestantism into many different denominations. Do I have an answer for that? No. I do believe the fragmentation has created a sort of a la carte Christianity where many people either consciously or unconsciously pick and choose which part of Christianity they like and leave the rest. Part of what I think is left is the commitment part of spouses. Commitment means more than just staying together. It means doing all one can to strengthen and support one's spouse even when it means lots and lots of sacrifice. Jesus's proscription for husbands to love their wives and the marriage vow "till death do you part" seems to somehow have gotten lost by many.
I believe much of "Christian" teachings have been watered down in the minds of non-religious Christians so much that they do not understand their religion and the commitment it takes to be a follower of Christ.
Many will disagree, but I believe a revival of commitmen through the teachings of Christ would go a long way to heal the problems we now face with single parenthood and the societal ills that follow.
Maybe, but there are certainly secular reasons to maintain a strong relationship as well. I'm not sure that people stay married because they're actually happier through religion as much as religion is an outside force strongly condemning divorce.
I imagine it is a little bit of both. However religion helps people be happier...
Researchers accidentally discovered that people with religious beliefs tend to be more content in life while studying an unrelated topic. While not the original objective, the recent European study found that religious people are better able to cope with shocks such as losing a loved one or getting laid off of a job.
Professor Andrew Clark, from the Paris School of Economics, and co-author Dr Orsolya Lelkes, from the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, analyzed the a variety of factors among Catholic and Protestant Christians and found that life satisfaction seems to be higher among the religious population. The authors concluded that religion in general, might act as a "buffer" that protects people from life's disappointments.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/03/are-religious-p.html
The authors concluded that religion in general, might act as a "buffer" that protects people from life's disappointments. AA
Is that what the priests in the rectory are calling it these days?
OB,
If you ask me a faith in God goes much deeper than simply act as a buffer against life's disapointments.
The authors, clearly secular in outlook, had no other way they could describe the positive effects of deep religious belief. However I do believe they missed the point of happiness through religious belief.
We all know bad things happen to good people all the time. Even when one is good and bad things happen, a faith in God keeps alive the hope for a better time. As one delves deeper into one's faith, no matter what happens around him, one finds contenment and peace. That peace leads to what I would call a truer happiness.
I'll concede it may not have been very funny, but how could you miss such an bovious joke.
That peace leads to what I would call a truer happiness. AA
"truer" or "deluded" it's all good.
If you ask me a faith in God goes much deeper than simply act as a buffer against life's disapointments. (AA)
Hey, it's working!
Many will disagree, but I believe a revival of commitmen through the teachings of Christ would go a long way to heal the problems we now face with single parenthood and the societal ills that follow. - anotheramerican
Christ has nothing to do with it. The fact is that atheists and agonostics have a lower divorce rate than any judeo-christian group except mormons, with whom they are tied. In general, the more conservative christian groups have higher divorce rates than the more liberal groups do. Baptists and pentacostals are among the highest. Just google "atheist divorce rate" and you will find that those results are supported by research from multiple groups.
A little follow-up. The first time I mentioned such statistics in a discussion group the reaction I received could only be described as angry. Quite a few refused to accept the data. Others acted as though mentioning the data was an attack on their religion.
I asked them why they hated the idea so much that atheists/agnostics have lower divorce rates. Shouldn't a low divorce rate be good, regardless of which group has it? Some blathered about simply being unhappy about divorce rates in general. There were some other responses like they just didn't like me attacking their religion. I asked those people why low divorce rates among the faithless was an attack on their faith. I never got any good answers to those questions. They couldn't tell me why low a/a divorce rates were bad or unbelievable. They were just sure that they were.
Bill,
Are you referring to the Barna Survey? If so, part of what you wrote is in error. Catholics and Atheists both have 21% divorce rates. Mormons had a 24% divorce rate.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
What is missing from the study is the socio economic levels of those polled. We all know that lower income, couples have higher divorce rates. Since incomes in the South are generally lower and where there are more conservative Christians, that might account for the higher divorce rates.
Whatever the reason, it is still sad that the divorce rate among atheists, agnostics, and religious is so high.
Here are some interesting statistics:
Getting back to Coulter' assertion:
Of course, divorce also results in a higher cost to society as a whole. According to one study, a single divorce can cost state and federal governments more than $30,000 in court fees, increased bankruptcies, food stamps, and public housing benefits.
http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divorce_Statistics
Though I'm acquainted with Barna's survey (it's by far the most often cited), I thought I recalled another survey that listed Mormons as the lowest, tied with atheists. However, now I can't find it so I probably remembered it wrong.
You did the same thing the people I discussed this with earlier did. You tried to imagine some way for that data to not be true and then you simply said all of the rates of divorce are "sad." Tell me, do you think the statistic you provided that said "If you have strong religious beliefs, your risk of divorce decreases by 14%" also applies to atheists and agnostics? If not, why do you think the divorce rate among a/a's is so low? Or, if you don't accept the data, why should it bother anyone that a/a's have lower divorce rates than those of judeo-christian faiths?
I just wanted to point out that, if we accept divorce rates as a measure of responsibility, it seems that the statistics indicate those who choose not to build their lives around Christ's teachings are doing pretty well. It would be interesting to see how prevalent single parenthood is in families with no religious faith. I wonder if the data is out there.
Bill,
You yourself admitted your facts were wrong and yet you accuse me of "imagine some way for the data to not be true", when I pointed the facts for pointing out your error? I think you are mistaken.
I have not tried to imagine the data to not be true. I acknowledged that it is sad that there is so much divorce among all groups.
There are other reasons for divorce than just religious beliefs of lack there of. I think I cited some of those reasons elsewhere.
What wasn't answered by those statistics is the economic level of those concerned. Also, it is not known, (at least by me,) the number of atheists who responded to the survey. How many atheists simply don't get married but cohabitate? Lots of missing informaiton to draw conclusions.
But lets just go with that survey. What does that prove? One could argue that atheists are as committed to marriage as are Catholics as they both have a 21% divorce rate. Protestants and evangelicals show higher divorce rates. Why is that? Could it be that their denominations have sanctioned divorce thereby giving it legitmacy? I don't know, but that might be one reason. How many evangelicals divorced before accepting Jesus? Is it statistically significant? I don't know the answer.
Of those who were identified, how many consider themselves strongly religious? I know of people who haven't attended a Catholic service other than a wedding or funeral in 30 years still call themselves Catholic. Some of them have divorced. My point is that there needs to be more study than what I gleaned from that Barna survey in order gain any meaningful insight.
I agree with your last sentence. It would be interesting to find out.
ps. My first sentence isn't very clear. The point I tried to make is that you presented data that is not true and accuse me of trying to make the data "not to be true" when I pointed out your error.
pps. I do appreciate you acknowledging your error.
A slight change is required.
I believe much of "Christian" teachings have been watered down in the minds of *religious* Christians so much that they do not understand their religion and the commitment it takes to be a follower of Christ.
Very clear teachings of Christ like "love your enemies" and "all men are brothers" are seldom quoted my modern, or traditional Christians.
ML,
I disagree. You apparently are looking in the wrong placesI have seen and heard many Christians leaders repeat this teaching of Jesus from the top on down to the local level. Do a google search on "love your enemies" and any of the following: the Pope or Pat Robertson or Focus on Family. There is only one supposedly fringe cult group that gest press that I know of that preaches hate. They have but a handful of followers but get lots of press.
Not that they are the enemy but do you ever see Christian pro-life organizations condemn women who have abortions? No. Christianity hates the sin and not the sinner.
However I'll grant you that it is not a topic that often comes up in general discussion. Perhaps it should.
I'm not saying there all Christians follow this teaching perfectly. Nobody is perfect and Christians can get a lot better.
On the contrary, I see a lot of bigotry and hateful comments toward Christians at this website by atheists than any by Christians toward any enemies.
Another American wrote "We need to teach our young girls that they need to save themselves for marriage..."
Sadly, you need to teach BOYS too, but it won't work. All those "virgin pledges" made were 50% ineffective - recent headline.
There's nothing wrong with being human but teaching responsible birth control is apparently a horrible liberal idea to Ann, I'm sure.
Anyway the single parents I know have better more responsible kids than the sometimes spoiled kids from two-parents.
Jones,
I agree with you about teaching the boys too. However the consequences of premarital sex is disproportionately harsher on girls.
We do disagree about birth control. But that is another subject.
Yes, we all know irresponsible married couples and responsible single parents.
We need to teach our young girls that they need to save themselves for marriage and let them understand the very real negative consequences of sex outside marriage.
Why don't we get the boys a chastity belt and harness up that pecker. Solve a lot of problems...;-)
AA,
If you believe this: "As a society we have to stop glamorizing singleparenthood and premarital sex. We need to promote commitment and help married couples work out their problems before the marriages disintegrate. We need to teach our young girls that they need to save themselves for marriage and let them understand the very real negative consequences of sex outside marriage.
How can your messenger be someone who said this: "Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me, I'm not married."-Ann Coulter from http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020205Coulter.html
I wholeheartedly agree with you on divorce and trying to make it work in some circumstances, but why, aside from Nevada which I think we can all agree is an outlier, is divorce so common in red states where these "values" are supposed to be stronger:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate
And if religion is the answer, explain this:
http://www.divorce-lawyer-source.com/news/high-christian-divorce-rates.html
Fried,
Coulter is not my messenger any more than she is yours.
Quoting Coulter out of context about some hypothetical point she was making does not prove anything. If you have the whole interview, it would help.
Income levels and education levels have a direct bearing on divorce too. Also the State populations and age levels need to be examined. If you take a look at the income levels of those States, my guess is you'll see some correlation.
What is also missing from these statistics are those mothers who never married the fathers. It would be interesting to know what the percentage of religious are among that group.
I referred tothe Barna survey above for your last point.
AA,
You praised Coulter for discussing the subject of promiscuity and single motherhood. How would you like it if Bill Clinton lectured Bush on obstruction of justice?
The point is that Ann Coulter has no room to make "family values" comments. Neither does Rush Limbaugh nor Newt Gingrich. Newt is a confessed cheater and Rush has been thrice married. The messenger is very important, AA.
Fried,
I have been talking about Coulter, it is others, like you, who bring up Gingrich and Limbaugh. I consider that a diverson.
I see no reason why Coulter, just because she is single, is a tainted messenger. She is not a single mother.
ps. If Clinton wants to lecture Bush that is okay by me. I see where all the ex Presidents are meeting with Bush and Obama today at the White House for lunch. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear those conversations.
She absolutely is a tainted messenger for what you are talking about: saving yourself for marriage, etc. She bragged about being able to have sex with whomever she wants as a single woman. She's a hateful, hateful woman who attacked the 9/11 widows as single women and claimed that she didn't know if they would want their husbands back if it meant they would have to give up their celebrity status.
Yeah, I would have loved to have heard the ex-presidents. I can't imagine what substance Bush added.
Statisticians can make the numbers say whatever you want, you just have to pay them enough. For example, Maggie Gallagher (from AA's link):
On January 26, 2005, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post uncovered records of Gallagher receiving payments of tens of thousands of dollars from the Department of Health and Human Services from 2002-2003 for helping the Bush administration promote the President's "healthy marriage" initiative.[16] During this time, Gallagher testified before Congress repeatedly in favor of "healthy marriage" programs, but never disclosed the payments.
14 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR 403-426 (1987)....Ramsey Clark, Crime in America: Observations on Its Nature, Causes, Prevention and Control (New York: Pocket Books, 1970), p.39. Cited in Amneus, The Garbage Generation...
Big problem with your stats-- they are all very old.
No doubt in the past single motherhood brought many problems, the pathology was much different than today, and so was the poverty rate.
But single motherhood is much, MUCH more middle class now than it ever was in the 60s and 70s, and because of that I suspect that the problems have decreased. It has become almost conventional to be a single parent these days, but the crime rate has not risen in proportion...? (No, it hasn't.)
carl,
I realize they are old. It was the first link from a google search. However it is not that old that the lessons are outdated.
The ranks of poor single mothers have grown since the 1996 welfare overhaul that weakened their safety net, and 30 percent now live with neither job income nor public assistance. http://www.womensenews.org/images/Welfare-3657.gif
So you are now willing to drop the idea of "culture of entitlement" as it applies to those at the bottom end of SES?
That term, of course, still applies to many at the top end.
Gotta love the way the right wing pushes around the MSM & Dems, controls AM radio and has their way with Congress and the news cycle. Every time.
WHO is glamourizing single parents? I keep hearing this claim and I just don't see it. If famous people are grateful for their MOM's raising them, don't think they aren't aware that their dad was deadbeat. I don't know ANY Single parent who set out to be one deliberately or who didn't try to fix things - but there are many reasons NOT to stay married. And not to marry, As Miss Coulter apparently knows. I used to think she was amusing. I don't anymore. It's like a game to her. Calling liberals godless and unpatriotic and raising strippers. I'd bet she, like many in DC doesn't go to church. Its all a money grubbing game. LIek Howard Stern only less intelligent.
Apparently their mere existance makes them glamorous and corrupting. Kind of like gays.
LIek Howard Stern only less intelligent.
And she's not funny, either.
So what about single mothers who became such because the fathers died serving this country? Will the children of deceased soldiers be criminals strippers and murders?
I know, if she were a robot, this would present a conflict in programming (hatred of single parents, love of military), and she would break down and go insane.
Good question, Dawuss, but I don't think it fits into Coulters mythology. The military family are church-going Republicans who had every intention of remaining a family unit, God just decided to make a hero of the dad. The wife and kid will get the "good kind of government checks.
The liberal single mothers, on the other hand, were trained from birth to get knocked up by shiftless druggies, and parade their bastards all the way down to the welfare office.
If you have any other questions requiring senseless answers, refer to AA's copy & pasted irrelevance above.
Dawuss,
I imagine children of fathers killed serving their country do face increased risk of anti-social behavior. It is very sad.
These people are a very small fraction of the total of single parent families. Lets look at the other 99.99% of single mothers. it is those children, who because their parents freely decided not to live as a family unit, who are the victims.
Incidentally, most of the divorced people I know are members of the military. Most of them are in their 20s, and almost all have small children. People in the military decide to divorce and have children out of wedlock just as often as anyone else, "freely deciding not to live as a family unit". Granted, I'm insulated in a military community, but if you want to look at a prime example of non-nuclear families, the military is a great microcosm.
AA, where did you get your 99.99% stat for the women who decided to be single mothers? Or did Ann Coulter just trick you again?
Lets look at the other 99.99% of single mothers. it is those children, who because their parents freely decided not to live as a family unit,
Don't forget to subtract out the single mothers who husbands are in jail, died in an accident, seperated by court for physical abuse, who abandoned them against their wishes. To claim 99.9% feely decide is plain silly. You are experiencing mental diarrhea.
Rather than take my quote out of context, why don't you back up your point?
I simply debunked the notion that single parent households due to military deaths is completely ignoring the vast majority of single parent households. There would have to be 129,000 families with military parents killed to add up to .01% of the total single parent households as there are 12,900,000 single parent housholds in the U.S.
Using incacerated felons and child molestors to make you point only shows how silly you sometimes get. I suspect next you'll be arguing that I left out orphan children who killed one or both of their parents.
Haven't we all seen this before? Coulter writes what amounts to an over the top screed, goes on televison, says more over the top crap and sells some books. Whoopee.
But the truth is the Coulters, Cunninghams, and the Limbaughs et al do one hell of a job for the liberal cause. So I say let Coulter minus her meds have the floor - you go girl (at least I think).
How about .. "You go, hermaphodite..."
Not quite as much of a ring to it, but ....
I thought the role of Media Matters was to deal with Media bias. Although Ann Coulter is a political "shock jock," she is not part of the media and her books are no more biased or hurtful than those from authors on the left (M. Moore, Krugman, Olbermann, Al Franken, etc.). NBC can ban whomever they want from their network, but they need to take a long, hard look in the mirror (Olbermann, Matthews).
Is there a report somewhere that shows the statistics back when people weren't so easily divorced? When broken homes stayed broken but the "family unit" was there? What was the criminal percentage for those in troubled homes (even if by name only)?
If not then these statistics mean nothing. If one can show that even a troubled home produces children that are less likely to commit crimes as long as both parents are there then ok. But I can't believe that having two parents that fight, argue, get abusive, etc., is more likely to send off better citizens.
Ok, now I'm mad, now I'm really mad!
In the 60's when my parents divorced I was ashamed and kept my family situation a deep guilty secret. children of divorces carried the stigma of being juvenile dilenquents and a bad influence. The result was my need to be the perfect son,not because that was what my mother expected, but it was my perception of what I thought I needed to be. My mother carried the wieght of caring for me and working hard to provide for me. So screw you Coulter! You insulted the memory of my mother, and the stigma many of us carried from a failed marriage that we were not reposnsuible for. It's pointless to insult this women whether it's a schtick or a carry over from her snotty New Canaan, CT upbringing.
She's a nutcase-- don't listen to her. Besides, she's been trying to change her story in light of all the criticism, by making it sound like she was talking about unwed mothers. She can't even get her targets straight.
This is all that she has left.
Earth to Coultergeist: Your side was wiped out in the last two elections. Does that tell you something? Get on with the rest of your life.
Ann, where, oh, where did I go wrong. My parents were divorced when I was a young one. I didn't become a stripper, but a stay at home mom. I married at 25, had my first kid at 27, my second at 32, been married to the same guy for 17 years, who is an officer in the Army. Ann I need you help to get my life right. Though, I don't think anyone would want to see a 42 year old fat stripper.
COLMES: Liberals hate marriage. Wait a minute. Let me just take my ring off, OK?
Classic.
Anne is delusional. Since when do liberals "hate marriage" or "want to destroy it"? Liberals don't try to "promote" single parenthood. We just don't feel like they should be publicly insulted and condemned, like Coulter does. Not to mention we don't feel like their children should be publicly insulted and condemned, like Ann Coulter does.
Also, Barack Obama never spat on or insulted his mother by being proud of his father's heritage, or being part African American, as Ann Coulter is claiming. In fact, he recounted memories of his mother has hard-working and learning a lot from her. I still have a relationship with my father who divorced my mother. Does that mean I spat on my mother? Not to mention that Obama mentioned being upset that his father wasn't there for him growing up.
Another falsehood Media Matters should add to their Coulter Falsehood's page. Delusional blonde skeleton.
So her book is about "Whaaaaa! We conservatives are victims"? I think the Republican party is going through a mental recession. You just hear this constant whining and complaining. They've sort of become a nation of whiners.
Maybe they are victims. The victims of fair elections.
Funny that this is coming from a person who is not or has ever been married ONCE at all, or has any children. I think that there should be an alarm for anyone who decides to listen to what Mann says about single mothers.
"We need to teach our young girls that they need to save themselves for marriage and let them understand the very real negative consequences of sex outside marriage."
No, let's NOT perpetuate the double standard, please. Why is it only girls have to be told of "negative consequences"? I thought we got rid of that backwards, sexist thinking forty years ago. Let's leave it in the past, shall we?
"and women who choose to have children should be forced into marriage."
Hey, why not just stone them? What IS this - Iran?
What is with all this women-hating??????
I love it. The more they rant the more they lose. This country is sick and tired of all the right wing hatemongers. ie. Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin
Colin Powell tried to warn them, but apparently they don't believe that fat meat is greasy!!!!