AuntiE wrote:
This is bound to be beyond interesting. I will take the first shot.
The percentage of children in single parent homes is causing a disaster among our youth, of all ethnicities.
This "problem" is most evident in black neighborhoods where males are often incarcerated for minor crimes that while males are only cited for. For instance, possession of weed. This has always been an intentional pattern that helps keep the black people down. The left keeps trying to solve this but the right doesn't want to change that pattern. Another factor is the divorce rate, which doesn't have to be that big of an issue as divorced parents can still spend time with their children. But there is another problem permitted by "pro-business" conservatives, and that is the hesitation to protect the interests of the working class. This has led to decades of stagnant wages and fewer benefits and eventually to the current state where single-income families are no longer possible.
AuntiE wrote:
Parents are abrogating their responsibilities to electronic technology.
Absolutely! Once again the result of "pro-business" conservative influence on politics. That electronic technology is the product of commercial trade that will fight against any effort to limit their influence on the market while also pushing their workers to work more hours for less pay to make more electronic stuff to sell. This results in children who's parents are too busy being corporate slaves to be around, filling in the space with consumer electronics.
This is not a new problem either... I did a research paper 30 years ago that compared the crusade for family values in America to France. I found that in France, family values were upheld by allowing families to actually spend more time together, which is why French families take more vacations together. In America, every last crusade for family values was obsessed with what children are exposed to on TV. This makes sense because in America, pro-business conservatism preserves the right for a business to keep family members at work for as much time as possible, leaving a lot of American kids in the company of the new American nanny... the television.
AuntiE wrote:
Religion is verboten except in church or private home.
That's just a negative way to look at secularism. The truth is, you can still be a religious person in a public space, you just can't force other people to comply with your dogma. If you think that's what religion should do, I would say you have a problem. Otherwise, there really isn't anything religion can't do in a public that it CAN do in a private space.
AuntiE wrote:
Unfortunately, too many churches are pursuing a more political agenda than one of faith.
Agreed.
AuntiE wrote:
Our public education system focuses more on social issues than on core subjects; mathematics, reading, basic science, and writing.
No, it doesn't. The problem is that our kids are in public school for 12 years. That's a long time to limit their education to the basics of how to function as a cog in a machine. When kids reach their adolescents years, they naturally become more curious about how to live in a human society... or shall we just say, social issues. The problem is that a lot of parents who are socially dysfunctional get freaked out about their kids learning how to do better.
AuntiE wrote:
I will not comment on sexual immortality.
Too bad, I would love to hear what you have to say about sexual immortality... Immortality being the continuation of a person's existence beyond death. I didn't know there was a sexual aspect to that.
AuntiE wrote:
From a clothing perspective, the worst thing that happened was the move toward business causal which has lead to slovenly appearance throughout society.
I think all the things I listed matter nil to a great many.
Yeah, that last one matters nil to me. When I started working at a major financial firm in PA a few years back it was after they finally relaxed their dress code because they couldn't retain their best engineers while they were forcing them to wear ties.
Dress codes are dishonest veneers that fail to reflect the true character of the person you are dealing with. I still wear a tie when I attend professional events but that's because it's a true reflection of the respect I have for the context, not because someone is forcing me to hide who I really am.
I would rather live in a world of honest people where judgement is based on their merits, rather than a world of fakes where judgement is based on their outward appearance. Notice how slimy salesmen and sleazy lawyers all wear suits? There's a reason for that.