Author archives: Rob Schwarzwalder

It’s Still Just Me”

by Rob Schwarzwalder

January 5, 2011

Today John Boehner became Speaker of the House of Representatives. As the cheers and hoo-rahs poured forth from the House floor and the visitors’ gallery, the new Speaker smiled and said quietly, “It’s still just me.” Then he began his formal speech.

In an era when government has grown to almost imponderable proportions and pretense, it is nice to have someone in a senior leadership position who remembers where he is from and that political power is, however long in life-years, objectively very brief.

There are scores of new Members of Congress. Around the nation hundreds of new state legislators are being sworn-in as well. There is much to celebrate about this: The transfer of partisan power whose peacefulness we take for granted; a recent election that gave much cause for social conservative rejoicing; and the prospect of a more serious commitment to constitutional governance.

Yet —- as Isaiah 40 reminds us —- in God’s sight, “nations are like a drop from a bucket, and are regarded as a speck of dust on the scales … He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless.”

In other words, political power is fleeting. When politicians recognize this —- as it seems John Boehner does —- a humbler, wiser, less arrogant government might well ensue. This will be especially true if the new Speaker, and all public servants, recall God’s words about where true power lies:

To whom then will you liken Me, that I would be his equal?” says the Holy One.

Lift up your eyes on high

And see who has created these stars,

The One who leads forth their host by number,

He calls them all by name;

Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power,

Not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:25-26)

Abortion, Adoption, and Birthmother Amnesia

by Rob Schwarzwalder

January 4, 2011

On Sunday, the New York Times ran a piece called, “Meet the Twiblings.” It’s an autobiographical account by Melanie Thernstrom about how she and her husband Michael obtained donor eggs from two women and then had them implanted in two different women. Thus, the articles striking subtitle: “How four women (and one man) conspired to make two babies.”

The moral and ethical issues involved in this couple’s decisions are genuine. That two beautiful, God-beloved children resulted from them does not make the path pursued by this couple ethical or wise.

Yet woven into the larger story is one about adoption. Consider just two quotes from the article:

Abortions Affect on Adoption

Quote #1: (I)n the 1970s, there was an abundance of babies in the United States in need of homes, but the widespread use of birth control and abortion, among other factors, has caused the supply of infants available for adoption in the subsequent three decades to plummet to a fraction of what it was then.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that about ten percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 wrestle with infertility. Adoption would be so much more streamlined, less agonizing, less of a desperate quest, if there were more babies to adopt - something that abortion and abortifacient drugs are efficient in preventing.

There are roughly 7.3 million infertile couples in the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there are about 1.7 million adopted children in our country.

While not every infertile couple wants to adopt, many, perhaps the majority, does, and yet strives to find a child to love, from the county foster care center to nations as obscure as Nepal.

The paradox of Americas unborn, as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has called it, is this: No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.

Honoring Birthmothers

Quote #2: You wont have anything in common with the carriers, a director of a Los Angeles agency (which we decided not to work with) insisted dismissively. The gestational carriers at their agency were mainly white, working-class women, often evangelical Christians the kind of girls you went to high school with, he said, managing to give high school an ominous intonation. He waved his hand. You may think you want to stay in touch now, but trust me, once you have your baby, youre barely going to remember her name. I call it surrogacy amnesia.”

Were I to meet this man, I might have difficulty being civil. To catalog the offenses laced like cyanide throughout his comments would be almost too onerous (they include religious bigotry, social snobbery, and elitist pomposity). Yet one phrase - “surrogacy amnesia” - is especially remarkable.

My wife and I remember the biological mothers of our children. We recall their names, their appearance, their stories, the way they sounded. We are grateful to them beyond words or human memory. Our thankfulness to them will remain eternal. This, not some “amnesia,” is the common experience of the adoptive parents we know.

Forgetting about a birthmother might be a form of psychological protection for some adoptive parents who find it too painful to think that their children are not theirs biologically. I cannot cite statistics about how many such persons there are, but would say pretty confidently it is a small number.

This is not to say adoptive parents are preoccupied with thoughts of their childrens birthmothers. But we do not forget them and, in an era of abortion-on-demand, the sacrificial love they have shown.

Here is how one writer describes the journey of a woman who decides to give her child to another family:

Why would a woman make this decision? Sometimes it is because of her religious beliefs, sometimes it is because she recognizes that this child is a unique little person who will never exist again in the history of the human race. Although she is not in the position to raise this child herself, she wants him/her to have the best possible life. She is aware that there are many childless couples who would love to give her baby a home and that they are carefully screened before being approved.

About such women there is no amnesia, only gratitude.

***Dr. Pat Fagan, director of Family Research Councils Marriage and Religion Research Institute, recently authored a new study, Adoption Works Well, which documents how effective adoption is and how it transforms, for the better, the lives of both parents and children. A free download is available here.***

Protesting Too Much: The Evangelical Left Doesnt Get Capitalism and Doesnt Want To

by Rob Schwarzwalder

December 16, 2010

Poor Jim Wallis is almost beside himself.

In an article published in The Huffington Post, Wallis’ class warfare rhetoric pours forth without stint or measure, spilling over upon those of us who have the audacity to believe that when a person earns money legally, it should not be unduly confiscated by the government.

Here is a sampling of Wallis’ careful, nuanced, ruminative, above-the-fray language:

  • higher tax rates on the very rich”
  • the very wealthiest Americans”
  • Goldman Sachs traders”
  • hedge fund gamblers”
  • a handful of very rich people”
  • There is socialism in America, but it’s only for the rich.”
  • ” … fighting the people whose greed, recklessness, and utter lack of concern for the common good have led us into this terrible crisis”
  • casino gamblers on Wall Street”
  • More tax breaks and benefits for the very wealthiest people in America is not only bad economics and bad policy; it is fundamentally immoral.”

Anyone for the barricades?

These huzzahs of indignation, full of stereotyped Leftist boilerplate, reflect either ignorance of how the economy grows or else a bitter ideological conviction that wealth is wrong and that the wealthy are ontologically evil.

Neither proposition is appealing, or convincing. After two years of massive federal spending and micromanagement of the economy (to the point where a President of the United States actually fired the head of General Motors), job losses have climbed and we are now facing the prospect of actual deflation.

Wallis would be more credible if he would simply announce what everyone who has ever read his books or op-eds has known for decades: He is a man of the Left and a highly partisan Democrat. His claim to be “post-partisan” and a man of neither Left or Right is as hollow as it is insistent.

Consider this statement, near the end of his piece - President Obama “waited too long” to “counter the distortions of the Republicans who clearly don’t mind adding huge sums to the deficit as long as it benefits their wealthy patrons.”

Ah, now I understand: Republicans opposed allowing tax rates to go up because they want to do favors for “their wealthy patrons.” Sort of like Wallis’ donor George Soros, perhaps?

Or perhaps they opposed allowing rates to rise because they believe that no poor man ever created a job. Or because they know that capital investment by those who earn the most is essential to those Wallis claims to champion, lower- and middle-income Americans. Or because they realize that a tax increase on those who pay the most in taxes to begin with is both unfair and, as a matter of economic policy, plain nuts during a time of economic duress.

Playing on populist indignation is cheap only if it is a rhetorical ploy. Wallis —- along with others like Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren —- actually believes this stuff. That is why Wallis uses the language of moral outrage to advocate policies that demonstrably don’t work. If he cares as much as he protests that he does for “the poor,” would he not support policies that produce jobs for them?

Socialism failed to deliver the bacon or the paradise. Capitalism delivered the bacon but not the paradise,” wrote University of Maryland economist Robert Nelson. Excellent point, but it should be said that no economic system ever will deliver paradise. Only God can do that, and will not do so in an age throbbing with the falls curse.

However, capitalism —- properly understood —- never claims to be the precursor to the Millennial Kingdom. It is a system of commerce, not a pathway to salvation. Christians should, and mature ones do, get that.

Materialism, acquisitiveness, greed, human and environmental exploitation, raw consumerism: These are the sins not of a system but of those who misuse it or whose confidence in its possibilities is misplaced.

Capitalism offers great financial reward for thrift, creativity, risk-taking, and shrewd marketing. It can, practiced properly, dignify labor, strengthen families, and foster a higher standard of living for everyone. John F. Kennedy was right: A rising tide lifts all boats.

The way to ameliorate the excesses of capitalists themselves is not by jettisoning the system that permits its own abuse. No economic system in history has produced the prosperity, medical innovation, or the quantity or quality of food and clothing and housing and transportation or improvements of virtually everything that can be conceived, designed, produced and utilized than capitalism.

The challenge for Christians and for a moral society in general is to encourage generosity in place of greed, fair pay for honest labor, liberty instead of constrictions that impede wealth-creation, appropriate and wise regulations that discourage injustice but not opportunity, including the simple act of hiring an employee because your business is beginning to grow.

That challenge is unmet when one demonizes his fellow citizens with puerile epithets (to Wallis, “Wall Street” seems to be an obscenity) instead of pondering seriously how to address inequity, job loss, and economic disadvantage.

Wallis’s hatred of the prosperous is visceral, grounded in his unrepentant Students for a Democratic Society ideology, such that he cannot juxtapose his loathing of the wealthy with the fact that only the well-off produce employment.

Thus, he clings to the mythical belief that only the central government has the wisdom to allocate resources wisely, assigning to the state a benign omniscience the Bible assigns only to God.

I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted and justice for the poor, says the Psalmist (140:12). Christians, who are called to imitate their Lord, should do this on His behalf. But the way to do so is not by continually lamenting over the state of those in need while advocating policies that hurt them. Its to find what works, and apply it ethically and effectively.

Sadly, this simple premise seems to have eluded Jim Wallis for far too long.

Unfettered capitalism, unrestrained by any regulation? No. But capitalism that, under what the Founders called ordered liberty, can thrive? For the sake of those on the downside of advantage, yes. Indeed, yes.

On Not Growing Weary in Doing (Public) Good

by Rob Schwarzwalder

December 7, 2010

In recent days, some Evangelical leaders have called for fellow believers to declare failure and withdraw from the public square. Academic sociologist James Davison Hunter, in his book To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World, is among those who believe that mere personal faithfulness should supplant Christian political engagement.

Gabe Lyons, another believer with a deep commitment to the Gospel, asserts on ABC News that “the Religious Right” achieved its goals in electing prominent leaders but asks, “Did anything change?”

It is a valid question, but purveys less careful thinking than it does weary aggravation, a frustration borne of false expectations.

Over the years, some believers seem to have thought that if only the “right” people were elected, somehow liberalism would disappear and that a new, halcyon era of truth and light would emerge across America’s fruited plain.

The events of the past three decades have proven this premise false, and instead remind us of the veracity of Scripture’s injunction, “Put not your trust in princes” (Psalm 146:3).

Political triumphalism is an idol, and political involvement is not the path to temporal salvation. We cannot, through legislative action, induce the kingdom of God to emerge on earth. Such attempts are neither new nor effective; witness the tower of Babel.

Evangelicals need to bear in mind that political victory almost invariably is incremental, and only occasionally does it transform culture. The two great racial justice movements in American public life —- the abolition and civil rights efforts of the 19th and 20th centuries —- were once-in-a-century phenomena. They were grounded in campaigns that included many disparate and sometimes mutually suspicious alliances, political efforts at the local, state, and national levels, and efforts to persuade the heart and mind of a nation through moral suasion and Christian exhortation.

A case in point: William Wilberforce and his friends in the Clapham group worked for the abolition of British slavery for decades. The final bill ending slavery in Britain was enacted only days before his death. But he never gave up.

Most of the time, political action achieves only incremental victory. For example, when

advocates of disengagement argue that after decades of Evangelical political activism, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, they should consider that to shift the culture is a trans-generational effort. It involves continuous and creative initiatives to persuade fellow-citizens and woo their consciences with fact and reason, grace and truth.

And we now see that 37 years after Roe, the majority of Americans reject unrestricted access to abortion on demand. When public judgment becomes settled, laws start to change. We have seen this already: Over the past decade, we have succeeded in:

  • Banning partial birth abortions (the act prohibiting them was upheld by the Supreme Court)
  • Enacting the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act”
  • Enacting the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”
  • Preventing federal funding of abortion through the Hyde Amendment (although this is now threatened under President Obama’s health care plan)
  • Applying the Mexico City Policy, created by President Reagan and now lifted by President Obama, but which under more conservative Presidents has prevented federal funding of overseas agencies that perform abortions
  • Fostering the growth of roughly 2,000 pregnancy care centers for women with crisis pregnancies.

This list contradicts Mr. Lyons argument: Elections do matter. From funding directives to specific laws to appointment of Supreme Court justices and federal judges, participating in the political process clear-eyed about what to expect is indispensable for Christian citizens and for what the Bible calls the welfare of the city (Jeremiah 29:7).

Of course, we have much work to do. Such abortifacient drugs as “ella” and RU-486 and Planned Parenthood’s relentless predation on troubled pregnant women remain open wounds on the national soul. Yet the examples I have cited constitute real change, and with the advent of a more pro-life milieu among younger Americans, how long can Roe and its attendant evils stand?

Additionally, when the Supreme Court finally invalidates Roe, those doing so will be justices appointed by a President and confirmed by a Senate elected by We the People. Thats change we can work for, if not put our unguarded confidence in.

When Roe falls, much more will remain to be done, from sustaining traditional marriage to delimiting the authority of courts that defy the plain meaning of the Constitution to upholding religious liberty in all its facets. And faithful Christians, whose obligation to bear witness is not mitigated by political discouragement (or self-pity), will keep working to advance life-affirming biblical principles in public affairs.

Is this the whole sum of Christian public duty? Of course not! Christians are actively serving the poor, at home and abroad; defending the persecuted in the courts and quietly with foreign governments; working to free the many millions of people trapped in sexual slavery and involuntary servitude; and a host of other ways, not least of which is simply getting to know their neighbors and showing them the love of Jesus in tangible, practical ways.

Yet to disengage from the public square is to deliver it up solely to evil. This would be an act of what the late theologian Carl F. H. Henry called “Christian lovelessness.” For serious believers in Jesus Christ, this is an option they must never accept. Let us, instead, do the work not of human princes but of the Prince of Life, to Whom alone belongs eternal victory.

It’s More Than a Feeling

by Rob Schwarzwalder

December 1, 2010

One of the most striking things Defense Sec. Gates said during his remarks today regarding the military’s survey on homosexuality related to what he called “feelings:”

Views towards gay and lesbian Americans have changed considerably during this period, and have grown more accepting since Dont Ask Dont Tell was first enacted. But feelings on this matter can still run deep and divide, often starkly, along demographic, cultural and generational lines not only in society as a whole, but in the uniformed ranks as well.

The objections many men and women in uniform, and their families, have toward allowing homosexuals to serve in the Armed Forces are not grounded in “feelings.” A feeling is an emotion, something that can change depending on one’s blood-sugar level.

What Sec. Gates seems to have tried to articulate, but not summoned the moral courage to state outright, is that people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong are poor (that would be demography), uneducated (there’s your lack of “cultural” maturity), and habituated to bigotry (“generational”).

He is as wrong as he is condescending: Homosexuality is described as a sin against God in both biblical Testaments. Those of us who believe the Bible’s commands transcend time and any society’s “growing acceptance” (Sec. Gates’ phrase) will remain opposed to the “mainstreaming” of homosexuality, period.

That’s a moral statement, Mr. Secretary. It’s not a feeling. It will not change until the Bible changes, which is, for the record, never.

Legislating from the Bench is Not Judicial “Independence”

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 28, 2010

Today is the 223rd anniversary of the publication of the first of what became known as The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, intellectual luminaries whose brilliance shines across the years, produced 85 treatises on the newly-proposed Constitution.

The Federalist Papers were designed to persuade their fellow citizens that a Constitution that defines, empowers and constrains the federal government was worth enacting. They succeeded in their project.

In our time, we are confronted by judges who believe the Constitution is not the carefully crafted text the Founders gave us but, rather, political putty onto which they can impress their personal beliefs and political vision. As Thomas Jefferson predicted, the Constitution has become, for those believe in legislating while presiding in a court, “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Defenders of the activist courts claim that those who wish to constrain judicial overreach want to erode the independence of the judiciary. To the contrary:

  • When a judge overturns the result of a state ballot election vote declaring what we have always known - that marriage is between a man and a woman;
  • When a judge says that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional;
  • When a judge believes she has the expertise to scrub multiple academic studies, not to mention the whole history of the Armed Forces’ warrior culture, in order to declare that military service for homosexuals is a “right,” and;
  • When a panel of judges declares that same-sex marriage is a constitutional “right,”

those rejecting the right of judges to make such rulings are attacking not an independent judiciary but that judiciary’s willful rejection of that which it is sworn to uphold, the Constitution itself.

An independent judiciary does not mean judges should be untethered from the nation’s charter text, becoming laws unto themselves, legislating at will through the vehicle of judicial edicts. It means that when a judge or panel of judges rules consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution, they should not be bullied into unconstitutional jurisprudence. This is why federal judges have lifetime appointments; from the early days of the Republic, such appointments have been viewed as safeguards against political pressure.

In our time, many judges have become bullies, insistent on imposing their will upon our system of representative self-government and the people themselves. Thus, Justice Scalia’s assertion that the Constitution “means what it meant when it was written” is a shocking, retrograde, near-barbaric affront.

With the men who gave us The Federalist Papers, let us stand for an independent judiciary —- independent from political shoving and pulling, but never independent from that which gives the judges themselves the right and power to serve: The Constitution.

Gucciones Legacy

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 22, 2010

Bob Guccione, founder of Penthouse magazine, has died. His pornography empire was built upon a premise: The viler and more graphic, the better.

News reports tell us that his publications featured every imaginable form of deviancy capable between human beings. I will not use this space further to describe the horror —- I use that word most intentionally —- that Guccione brought to thousands of young women and to those who viewed his debasing exploitation of them.

Yet in the stories about his life, his obituaries in the mainstream media give us a remarkable window into the way the secular Left thinks about such things as truth, decency, and honor.

National Public Radio tells us that Guccione kept pushing the limits of porn and getting edgier.

The Washington Post seems almost celebratory: According to its obituary, Guccione revolutionized the adult entertainment industry.

And the New York Times argues that Guccione broke taboos and outraged the guardians of taste, to which it might as well have added, and good thing, too.

None of these obits describe what Guccione wrought as wrong, cruel, deviant, the very essence of cultural debauchery. To do so would imply objective moral standards exist. To affirm this belief would be an affront to the sensitivities of our age.

Let me see if I have this straight: We can be edgy —- i.e., prurient and self-destructive —- when it comes to sex. We cannot be edgy —- i.e., honest and straightforward —- about what is good and right.

As to the New York Times phrase, the guardians of taste: Yes, the vast majority of the American people, sickened by seeing young women used for perverse sexual pleasure in the most vivid and shocking of ways, do have a sense of guardianship toward obvious assaults on human dignity.

This is not about taste or edginess. Its about whether or not women are made in the image of God. About whether some things are right and others wrong, and about whether liberty can be reduced only to issues of privacy and consent, while excluding virtue and restraint.

If we lose our virtue, and as a society, were well on our way, moral chaos will reign. Widespread personal moral collapse leads to social disintegration, which leads to desperate pleas for order and security. Whereby a dictator arises, and liberty is lost.

Family Research Councils friend Pat Trueman has written, To equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the First Amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom. It is a misuse of the great guarantees of free speech and free press.

Gucciones career was based on the abuse of women and the misuse of liberty. He gained much that the world has to offer: Great wealth, sexual wantonness, a massive art collection, etc. But what, in eternity, has he lost?

A Window Into Barack Obamas Theology

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 15, 2010

During the presidential campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama famously told Pastor Rick Warren that determining when human personhood began was above my paygrade.

A professing Christian, he could not bring himself to concur with the plain teaching of the Bible that from the moment of conception, human life in all its biological fullness begins at conception.

An educated man, he could not sufficiently evaluate the clear scientific evidence that with the entire DNA any person ever possesses present within the embryo from conception onward, personhood starts at conception.

A father, he could not affirm that his precious daughters deserved legal protection in their mothers womb, from conception until birth.

Since then, his income must have dramatically changed, as he has initiated a nationwide health care mandate that funds and subsidizes abortion-on-demand, exported abortion overseas through American funding thereof, and even sought to have taxpayers subsidize abortion on our military bases.

As President of the United States, Barack Obama has been a deliberate, systematic evangelist of the culture of death.

Yet despite his professed theological mystification regarding the sanctity of unborn life, President Obama has no moral or intellectual difficulty in asserting that homosexuality is not a choice but the result of people being born with a certain make-up.

At a televised event targeting the nations youth,

… (when) asked directly if gay or transgender people have a choice or are born that way, Obama told a town-hall style event with students that he was no expert, then added: I don’t think it’s a choice. I think people are born with a certain make-up.

We’re all children of God, Obama said. We don’t make determinations about who we love. That’s why I think discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong.

The President is wrong: Biology offers no sanction to the view that homosexuality is genetic, nor does Christian theology applaud or passively accept same-sex intimacy. The God of love is also the God of truth Whose Word teaches that any kind of sexual intimacy other than that experienced by a man and a woman within marriage is offensive to Him.

No pay-level is needed to affirm these things: They are obvious from science and Scripture.

President Obama might be, as the Leftist religious commentator Jim Wallis asserts, almost a public theologian. He is just not a very biblically faithful one.

The Bible tells Christians to pray for their political leaders. This includes, of course, President Obama. May we pray that this man who so obviously cherishes his own wonderful family sees that abortion and homosexuality are not morally neutral choices to be facilitated by a government founded on the principle that the right to life is a gift of the Creator.

Twins Socialize in the Womb

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 13, 2010

As the father of twins, this story about how twins socialize in the womb caught my eye. It is noteworthy that if unborn children can socialize —- if they are, in fact, “people,” as noted in the last line of this story —- they are, in fact, persons, human beings meriting the protection of law.

From the time they were tiny, my boys have been incredibly social with one another and with others. “Never met a stranger” could have been coined about my sons. Since infancy, they also have always been highly engaged, physically and verbally, with one another.

My sons continue to socialize at the age of 12. Sometimes this involves extensive wrestling, wearing one another’s clothes, invading one another’s space, and merciless teasing. Which means their mother and I have to intervene and prevent such “socializing” at times. In the womb, out of the womb: Twins are twins.

A Tale of Two Web Videos

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 6, 2010

Last night, in honor of our pet cockatiel - creatively named Paulie (he is a male) - my family and I watched some goofy online videos of singing birds. Listening to a bright-green parrot whistling opera is guaranteed to make children, and their parents, laugh.

After one of the videos ended, another came up - this one for what was, evidently, a pornographic short-film. To describe it would be to offend moral decency. We exited the site as quickly as possible.

We had laughter, innocence, togetherness, my little girl scrunched between her brother and me, my other son standing close by and my wife and I seated next to one another.

Love and family, gifts of God. And then the sordid, the crass, the debauched: From one to the other, in a sudden flash of electronic neurons.

This brief episode reminded me of the broader character of life in a fallen world. Beauty marred by the smear of filth. Joy not untouched by pain. The quiet, glad life of a family intruded upon by garish sin.

It is to sustain the family as God intended it, to protect the innocence and thus, ultimately, the character of our children, and to defend and nourish these things as the bedrock of our civilization that the Family Research Council exists. No legislation can substitute for the protection of a vigilant parent, and no law can build a moral wall thick enough to prevent the persistent trickle of sin from seeping through it. Sometimes, that trickle is more like a raging current.

We know that. But we also know that public law and personal character are entwined. That without the protection of just law, families and all private citizens are at the mercy not just of an imposing, threatening state but the creativity of evil in myriad forms. That without personal virtue, liberty descends visibly into license. Personal, private, public: Interrelated, inextricably.

So, Family Research Council makes public arguments about political policy, advances good laws, and seeks a justice system that adheres to the Constitution as it was written. We seek to do this with grace and truth, firmness and patience. And whatever our visible successes and failures, we know Who wins in the end.

To help fight pornography:

It is estimated that one-third of all children are accessing online pornography by the time they are ten years-old, according to a new study in the U.K. By age 16, eight in 10 of them are regularly seeking it out. Unfortunately, children are only part of the pornography puzzle. Men, women, and families are harmed irreparably by the proliferation of these images on the Internet and other media.

What can Congress do about it? Well, it can start by enforcing the current laws, which was the subject of an important briefing on Capitol Hill in June of this year. FRC helped facilitate the event, which featured experts like our former policy fellow Pat Trueman.

In December, 2009, FRC’s own Dr. Pat Fagan released a major paper on the effects of pornography on society, which confirmed that Capitol Hill has a vested interest in protecting Americans against pornography and pornographers. To learn more about what’s at stake in this debate and what you can do to help, click here to watch video from the Capital Hill briefing.

Archives