Magic Statistics

“I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.” — Robertson Davies

January 18th, 2006 at 9:21 pm

The real marriage-and-social-justice issue

The growing gap between the haves and the have-nots in America, argues Kay S. Hymowitz, is largely attributable to the rise of single-parent families, especially among less-educated mothers.

[S]tarting in 1980, Americans began to experience a widening Marriage Gap that has reached dangerous proportions. As of 2000, only about 10 percent of mothers with 16 or more years of education–that is, with a college degree or higher–were living without husbands. Compare that with 36 percent of mothers who have between nine and 14 years of education.
. . .
Yes, experts predict that about 40 to 50 percent of marriages will break up. But most of those divorces will involve women who have always shopped at Wal-Mart. [T]he rise in single-parent families is concentrated among blacks and among the less educated, summarize [David] Ellwood and [Christopher] Jencks [in their 2004 paper, ‘The Unequal Spread of Single-Parent Families’]. "It hardly occurred at all among women with a college degree."

Why are educated women more likely to get married before having children, even though they are better able to afford to raise children on their own? Because they know that children have a far greater chance of educational and economic success if the children have fathers and their mothers have husbands.

It’s common sense, backed up by plenty of research, that you’ll have a better chance of fully "developing" your children . . . if you have a husband around. Children of single mothers have lower grades and educational attainment than kids who grow up with married parents, even after controlling for race, family background, and IQ. Children of divorce are also less likely to graduate and attend college, and when they do go for a B.A., they tend to go to less elite schools.
. . .
To repeat the question: Why do educated women marry before they have children? Because, like high-status women since status began, they are preparing their offspring to carry on their way of life. Marriage radically increases their chances of doing that.

This all points to a deeply worrying conclusion: the Marriage Gap—and the inequality to which it is tied—is self-perpetuating. A low-income single mother . . . is more likely to raise children who will become low-income single parents, who will pass that legacy on to their children, and so on down the line. . . . Instead of an opportunity-rich country for all, the Marriage Gap threatens us with a rigid caste society.

Still, the question remains: Why are life chances better for children who are raised in a home by a husband and wife who are married to each other? Some have argued that it’s not marriage per se; rather, it’s the kind of people who marry. Those who are able to get married and stay married have the kind of life skills needed to raise children successfully.

Read the whole thing.

Print This Post Print This Post
January 18th, 2006 at 6:40 pm

What’s my eschatology?

 

You scored as Amillenialist. Amillenialism believes that the 1000 year reign is not literal but figurative, and that Christ began to reign at his ascension. People take some prophetic scripture far too literally in your view. 

Amillenialist
 
100%
Preterist
 
75%
Moltmannian Eschatology
 
70%
Postmillenialist
 
50%
Premillenialist
 
35%
Left Behind
 
5%
Dispensationalist
 
0%

What's your eschatology? created with QuizFarm.com

I hate to have to point this out, but I can't help myself: The quiz meister misspelled amillennialist, etc.

5% Left Behind is 5% too much, so that's a concern for me. And that raises a question. How is it possible to have zero percent dispensationalist along with a positive score for Left Behind? The Left Behind series is entirely based on dispensational theology.

I don't know much about Moltmannian eschatology, and I'm afraid I found the book review that Todd Granger linked as clear as mud.

Like Todd and Brad Drell, I'd like to see Kendall Harmon's results for this quiz. And Binky's, too, while I'm asking.

Print This Post Print This Post
January 18th, 2006 at 5:12 pm

Old Crow reconsiders alcohol ban

The remote northern Yukon town of Old Crow (population 267 as at 1 December 2005), home to the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, has been officially dry for fifteen years. The ban has proved impossible to enforce, so it is being reviewed.

First Nation leaders in Old Crow have asked a committee to survey citizens on the future of the bylaw.

Officially, the town has been dry for the last 15 years. But police say booze is smuggled in regularly, in mail parcels, packed into garden hoses, and even disguised as drinking water.

RCMP say they get little help enforcing the ban. Constable Paul Thalhofer says this Christmas, nearly everyone in the community of 300 flouted the band's alcohol bylaw.

Some community leaders, however, say that the ban has helped people quit drinking and reduced violent crime.

The review committee will report to the Vuntut Gwitchin general assembly this summer, at which time the First Nation will decide whether to continue prohibition.

Print This Post Print This Post
January 18th, 2006 at 4:59 pm

Banning paedophiles from worship services

This issue was debated on a UK radio network's religious affairs programme last Sunday.

A synagogue in Newcastle has banned a paedophile from coming to say memorial prayers for his dead mother. A rabbi was explaining why paedophiles should not be made to feel welcome in communities. A child protection officer from the Catholic Church said that banning child molesters from services was an option.

Daily Telegraph columnist Alice Thompson disagrees with this view.

These sex offenders are not applying for jobs as Sunday school teachers or choirmasters; all they want to do is worship, and possibly repent. But they are now considered beyond redemption.
. . .
Apparently Christ died for everyone except paedophiles.

Ms Thompson is absolutely right. The church is a home for repentant sinners, not for those who are already perfectly righteous. (I can't speak for Judaism, but I would imagine that most rabbis take a similar view of the synagogue.) Jesus said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

That's not to say that no restrictions should be placed on where repentant paedophiles may serve in the church, as Ms Thompson says. But that's prudential, not judgmental. The same prudence would dictate that a greedy person (like me) not be allowed entry to a bank after the employees have gone home, with the vaults open, and the alarms turned off. It's just not wise.

The church should welcome all who recognise their sin and seek the Lord's healing. Church-goers occupy pews next to people who are greedy, or ill-tempered, or harbour illicit desires. (I see someone like that every day in the mirror.) A Christian who says that paedophiles may not worship with the rest of us sinners is saying, "Your sin is worse than mine". That is one thing that cannot be said in the church, for "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".

Can you imagine the cries of outrages if it were suggested that the church doors should be barred, not to paedophiles, but to homosexuals? As in this case, the outcry would be fully justified.

Print This Post Print This Post
|