As someone who loves the Fourth of July and the story of our country’s founding, I was pleasantly surprised to see all the hoopla that came out of the woodwork last minute to celebrate our nation’s 250th birthday. Firework shows were more fantastic, commemorative memorabilia abounded, and social media was full of people proclaiming their gratitude for our nation and the wisdom of those who founded it.

While perusing some of these social media posts, I came across one featuring a new statue of Thomas Jefferson, which the accompanying article explained was likely destined for the White House Rose Garden. The statue was tastefully done, giving a realistic depiction of Jefferson with a quill pen in hand, presumably composing the Declaration of Independence.

But it was the commentary accompanying this post that particularly caught my eye.

“I love the renewed interest in art during this presidential term,” the poster wrote. “Art matters!”

It does indeed. And until reading philosopher Roger Scruton’s work “Beauty: A Very Short Introduction” recently, I didn’t realize just how much the artwork that we praise as beautiful or worthwhile is an indicator of our health—spiritually, nationally, and personally.

Art as a Window to Spiritual Health

All too often, today’s artwork is the stuff of “kitsch,” Scruton explains, full of cutesy figurines or “sugary stereotypes” that fulfill the consumeristic urge and make us feel good about ourselves. Scruton calls this the “Disneyfication of art,” calling to mind the cartoonish characters that dance across screens and into bedroom decorations or eating utensils, or even the cheap beauty of the ever-present Disney princesses, with the colorful gowns and jewels that are nothing more than gaudy imitations of a beauty and grandeur that once graced the European world from which these fairy tales stem.

Such kitsch is really just another way of putting lipstick on a pig, for these superficial attempts at beauty lack depth and meaning, thus removing the true purpose of art.

“True art is an appeal to our higher nature, an attempt to affirm that other kingdom in which moral and spiritual order prevails,” Scruton writes.

In other words, true art should make us think about God, our relationship to him and others around us, and even our inadequacy to measure up to his standards.

The fact that much of today’s art doesn’t send this message or inspire these deep thoughts, often numbing the senses instead, may explain much of the chaos and despair we see in recent history, Scruton implies.

Art and Sacrifice

If art doesn’t inspire the quest for the spiritual, it also fails to inspire the fruit of the spiritual, namely, virtue, and in virtue’s decline we can also see a picture of our nation.

“Sacrifice is the core of virtue, the origin of meaning and the true theme of high art,” Scruton writes. “Sacrifice can be avoided, and kitsch is the great lie that we can both avoid it and retain its comforts. Sacrifice can also be made meaningless by desecration.”

In recent years, it has been popular to desecrate statues that depict revered, virtuous men of the Confederacy or the founding era, such as Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jefferson, men who dared hold opinions or do things that are now seen as anything but politically correct. Yet these same individuals were ones who made great sacrifices in order to fight for their country and their beliefs, and, as such, their depiction in art calls us to similar virtues.

“When sacrifice is present and respected, life redeems itself; it becomes an object of contemplation, something that ‘bears looking at,’ and which attracts our admiration and our love,” Scruton writes.

Such a thought suggests that the recent desecration of our national statues is simply a chance to discourage our population from thinking about the sacrifices that made our country great. Remove the examples of virtue and sacrifice, and you remove the role models for current and future generations to follow. But restore high-quality depictions of our nation’s leaders—such as the earlier mentioned Rose Garden statue of Thomas Jefferson—and you encourage the population to love those who went before and seek to imitate the good that they did.

Art Measures Our Rationality

Finally, Scruton hints that the type of art we accept and appreciate demonstrates the rationality of our being. If we live only in the present, going with the flow of trends and the kitsch that passes for art today, our rationality is called into question. But if we embrace truly beautiful art—that which exists in both the past and the present and reminds us of both “the sacred and the sacrificial”—then we have set ourselves on “the path out of desecration.”

In other words, art should inspire us to think and reflect about our past, our spiritual condition, and other elements of the good, the true, and the beautiful. When it doesn’t—when it becomes just something that gives us warm fuzzies—then we’re deprived of a valuable avenue for self-reflection and even character development.

For many of us, art doesn’t seem like an important thing. Instead, it seems like an extra, something that we add to our lives only if we have the time and money to do so.

But art, as Scruton implies, is so much deeper, and it can test the temperature of our individual and national well-being. If the art we’re churning out today doesn’t inspire us to think, to sacrifice for others, and to consider our need for God, then that’s a decent indicator of decline. But if it encourages us toward those things, as some of the art surrounding America’s 250th birthday did, then we can be encouraged that perhaps our nation is redirecting itself toward a better path.

Subscribe now

—

This article is republished with permission from The Epoch Times.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced on Wednesday that she is leaving her position as the public face of the Trump administration.

The announcement was a bit surprising, not only because Leavitt just returned from maternity leave, but also because of her comments in recent months indicating that women can indeed have it all and raise a family while balancing a high-profile career. Now it seems the addition of another child has changed her perspective.

“Being a mother and welcoming a new baby while working in one of the most demanding jobs in the world has been the most rewarding yet challenging season of my life, to say the least,” Leavitt wrote on X. “The truth is since returning to the White House after the birth of my daughter, I have felt in my heart that I cannot be the best mom my two young children deserve while devoting the constant time, energy, and attention required of the White House Press Secretary….”

Leavitt’s departure is coming at an inopportune time for the Trump administration, for as she acknowledges in her post, “Our country is facing an existential threat from an increasingly extremist Democrat Party that seeks to destroy everything great about America.” As recent primary elections indicate, that threat is the growing popularity of socialist-minded candidates.

Leavitt promises to continue fighting this threat, declaring, “My fight is entering a new phase, but it is far from over.”

Such words are the bread and butter of well-crafted departure posts such as these. But in this case, I think Leavitt’s promise to fight is more than just words. In actuality, quitting the workforce and coming home gives Leavitt a far better path toward fighting socialism than her influential career as press secretary ever could, and G. K. Chesterton tells us why.

“Here are two institutions that have always been fundamental with mankind, the family and the state,” Chesterton writes in “What’s Wrong With the World?”

Socialists are specially engaged in mending (that is, strengthening and renewing) the state; and they are not specially engaged in strengthening and renewing the family. They are not doing anything to define the functions of father, mother, and child, and as such; they are not tightening the machine up again; they are not blackening in again the fading lines of the old drawing. With the state they are doing this; they are sharpening its machinery, they are blackening in its black dogmatic lines, they are making mere government in every way stronger and in some ways harsher than before. While they leave the home in ruins, they destroy the hive, especially the stings.

Leavitt, however, has decided to take the opposite stance. Instead of strengthening the government and continuing to build its machine, she has decided to build up the home, strengthening and renewing her own little family, defining the function of a mother to her little children.

Chesterton goes on to explain why such a move is so important:

Babies need not to be taught a trade, but to be introduced to a world. To put the matter shortly, woman is generally shut up in a house with a human being at the time when he asks all the questions that there are, and some that there aren’t. … Now if anyone says that this duty of general enlightenment (even when freed from modern rules and hours, and exercised more spontaneously by a more protected person) is in itself too exacting and oppressive, I can understand the view. I can only answer that our race has thought it worth while to cast this burden on women in order to keep common-sense in the world. [Emphasis added.]

Put differently, a woman who prioritizes home and children helps the world make sense to her little ones. She answers questions, establishes principles, and instills them with good ol’ common sense – something sorely lacking in those who increasingly push for a socialized mindset in government and in every area of our lives.

Leavitt’s promise to continue fighting may seem cliché, but it’s anything but that. Because the woman who orders well her household, loving her husband and training her children to recognize common sense, produces far more arrows to fight insidious ideology than any time spent at a podium will ever do.

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal, a project of 1819 News.

Image credit: Karoline Leavitt/Instagram

Weddings are a joyous occasion, and I’ve heard of at least three in my social circles in the upcoming months. But two of these weddings are diverting from the norm of a weekend celebratory affair, choosing instead to hold their nuptials on a weekday.

“A weekday?!” one might well say. “How inconsiderate! I can’t take a whole day off from work just to attend a wedding!”

But perhaps that’s the whole point – not to be inconsiderate, of course, but to trim costs. After all, setting a wedding for a weekday reduces the costs of venues, caterers, florists, and other services, while also automatically lowering the wedding guestlist – not through invites from the couple, but through each guest’s own decision on how far they are willing to go to be available on the big day.

This trend isn’t just in my social circles, however. As a recent article in Elle explained, the younger generation is riding the pendulum away from the millennial trend of bombastic, Instagram-worthy weddings, opting instead for small, quiet, budget-friendly ceremonies that rely on dresses from grandma’s attic and a friend with a film camera.

“In many ways, this shouldn’t come as a surprise,” author Rowan Beaird writes. “Gen Z has lived most of their lives amid periods of profound economic precarity, and the idea of spending thousands and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars on a single day seems absurd.”

Beaird believes these young couples are onto something, asking, “What would it mean for us to think of these celebrations not as a performance, but as simply what they are at their core: traditions, rituals, ceremonies marking the start of a marriage?”

Wait, weddings that are traditions, rituals, and ceremonies to mark the start of a marriage? What a novel idea!

Except … that’s exactly what a wedding was always supposed to be: a solemn pledge which marks two lives coming together symbolically and physically, promising to love and to cherish one another in sickness and in health, not a big party that celebrates a physical relationship that’s already started – and may even be on the rocks soon given the debt required to make the party bigger and better than the one the Joneses had last year.

In 1786, George Washington dropped a profound little line while writing to Charles Armand-Tuffin:

For in my estimation more permanent & genuine happiness is to be found in the sequestered walks of connubial life, than in the giddy rounds of promiscuous pleasure, or the more tumultuous and imposing scenes of successful ambition.

Washington was writing more about the daily aspects of married life more than he was speaking of wedding ceremonies, but I believe his advice speaks to the trend away from over-the-top weddings. Essentially, Washington saw that a happy marriage isn’t necessarily one which has all the bells and whistles, the sights and sounds, the smells and the tastes that make a wedding Instagram perfection. Those things all appeal to the senses – the “giddy rounds of promiscuous pleasure” and the “imposing scenes of successful ambition.”

Instead, it is the quiet solemnity – those “sequestered walks” – of a simple marriage ceremony surrounded by family, old traditions, and even homemade cake, that tend to create true happiness. For such events are not spectacles of eye candy that fool guests into thinking the couple has it all together; rather, they are humble attempts to focus on the people and realities of life – the stuff that all marriages are really made of in the end.

And when we recognize that true marital success is found in how we handle the simple, foundational things of life – God, family, friends, and resources – then perhaps we’ll have more couples who make it further than a few years after they walk down the aisle.

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Just a few years ago, if a single individual mentioned his or her interest in dating or marriage, those within earshot would immediately ask, “Have you tried online dating?” It was as if those magical dating apps were the panacea that could cure even the most unlucky-in-love.

How quickly things change. Those in the millennial and Gen Z age ranges, who once embraced dating apps en masse, now seem to be abandoning them faster than Taco Bell customers are ditching its lettuce-laden dishes. Or at least, some people are looking for alternatives. According to one survey, about 78% of users report dating app burnout.

Evidence of this surfaced in a recent article from the Minnesota Star Tribune, which featured a new singles group formed around service and conservation. The group, Minneapolis Buckthorn Removal Singles Club, began from a desire to eradicate invasive species — both the creeping buckthorn weed and the pernicious dating apps that hinder young adults from meeting in real life and allowing a relationship to grow naturally.

It’s easy to dismiss such a group as cute but crazy. After all, doesn’t one have to be pretty desperate to come out on a weekend morning, stomp around the woods and sweat out a shirt just to meet others who are single and ready to mingle? Regardless, I think these folks are actually on to something valuable — not only for singles, but for our culture as a whole.

Why? Because such an activity is a prime facilitator of community. Community — or the interaction between neighbors, friends and family — is a vanishing element in society, pushed out not only by our reliance on technology, but also by other societal developments such as the COVID shutdowns and increasing political polarization.

There are a number of reasons we as individuals — single or otherwise — need community to properly function and live.

For starters, community provides an escape from the loneliness and isolation with which more than half of Americans struggle — which likely also leads to the mental health issues plaguing 1 in 5 Americans. One can’t help but wonder if we would see some of these mental health issues decline if more Americans were like the buckthorn gang mentioned above, getting out and working alongside their fellow man toward a common good cause.

Second, community forces us to look beyond our own problems. Getting out and being with others naturally leads us to learn about their lives. And as almost no life is untouched by sorrow or difficulties, our interactions with others enable us to both share our own burdens and listen to those that others carry, ostensibly making both lighter and easier to bear. Additionally, the opportunity to hear about the difficulties others are facing enables us to break out of the pity party or victimization mode into which it’s so easy to slip.

Spending time with others also breaks the superficiality that can so easily hinder our interactions with others. The buckthorn crew, for example, is forced to work manually toward a common goal for hours on end, making it far more difficult to resort to phone scrolling or monosyllabic answers. Instead, those laboring side by side must stretch their brains to ask questions, share freely and go into conversation topics that might otherwise be avoided.

This development brings another positive, namely, bringing disagreements or different viewpoints out into the open, forcing discussions on a wide range of issues to take place face to face. And when discussions like these happen in person, we’re more prone to cultivate the civility and politeness which many of us discard when engaging in online debates.

As author Wendell Berry aptly explained in “The Art of the Commonplace,” community is the medium which holds us to a “standard of behavior or responsibility.” It also “aspires toward stability,” striving “to balance change with constancy.”

Take away that community, and we’re left with chaos and contention. Restore that community, and we begin to properly interact and see one another as real people once again, worthy of respect.

We may not all be cut out to fight invasive buckthorn … but every one of us can combat the pernicious contention invading today’s culture by cultivating in-person community with those around us.

Subscribe now

—

This article is republished with permission from The Minnesota Star Tribune.

Image Credit: Unsplash

A news blurb on back-to-school sales gave me a tough dose of reality the other day. Even though most of the nation is currently in the throes of summer heat and humidity, the truth is that kids will be hitting the books before we know it.

According to a 2025 EdChoice survey, 80% of those kids will attend one of our nation’s public district schools. Our nation’s public schools have received negative ratings for years, yet when it comes to local public schools, people often give them high ratings. Perhaps that’s because we’ve all adopted several false assumptions about public schools and the quality of their education.

Those false assumptions have been around for decades, a fact attested to by 20th-century author and cultural commentator Bernard Iddings Bell. Writing in his book, “Common Sense Education,” Bell laid out seven assumptions Americans wrongly make about our public schools, showing that the education which comes out of these revered halls isn’t all many of us have believed or hoped it to be.

1. Students Are Equal in Mental Ability

This assumption is generally driven by that famous equality line in the Declaration of Independence, Bell says. But common sense and observation show that no mind is alike, and that each child varies in his ability to grasp a concept, a reality that is often driven by a child’s home life.

As a result, gifted students are held back, while others have a hard time keeping pace with the rest of the class, producing a uniformity of thought and a lack of individuality, Bell explains. “Great as are the glories of the public school system, it has paid for them heavily in the deadly complacency and stupid uniformity which has been produced from one end of the country to the other,” he concludes.

2. Mass Education Is Effective

We build upon the idea that children are equal in mental ability when we seek to educate them in a large group in order to cut costs, Bell explains. Yet, “if we have mass production it can only be a uniform production,” he says. “We shall turn out academic Fords rather than academic Cadillacs.” In other words, the broader and bigger we make our schools and classrooms, the more mediocre is the instruction.

3. Teaching Methods Matter More Than Content

Teacher training today often consists of learning how to teach this reading method, or how to best manage a classroom, or perhaps even how to harness technology to impart wisdom to children. Yet according to Bell, such “technical devices” can never “take the place of personal contact, or individual stimulation given by the teacher to the pupil.

To combat this, we must be more proactive in training our teachers “in the content of real learning.” Essentially, math teachers need to know and love math, reading teachers need to know and love books, and so on, which teaches students to copy the teacher’s love and knowledge of those subjects rather than imparting a method to the plod along with the madness.

4. Education Is About Imparting Facts

“Almost anybody can accumulate some facts,” Bell explains. “It is only exceptional people who can do anything with them once they have them.” Unfortunately, the public school system primarily seeks to impart only facts (if even that!), failing to train students how to process those facts and turn them into fodder for innovative creativity and thought.

5. Male and Female Minds Are Alike

Both common sense and scientific research tell us that male and female brains are different. That doesn’t necessarily mean that one or the other sex is less intelligent, Bell explains. It simply means that they have different strengths and weaknesses in learning.

That turns into a problem in the public school, however, because its instruction “is apt to be fitted to the feminine rather than to the masculine need,” Bell explains. Add into the mix the reality that many more women enter the teaching profession than men, and you have a situation which causes boys to get the short end of the stick in the public school system.

6. Learning Doesn’t Happen in the Summer

I strongly believe in a summer break, particularly as today’s children need time to play free beyond the four walls of a classroom. Yet Bell makes a strong case that we severely set back the mental growth of a child by taking that break – especially when no other reading, learning, or intellectual development is happening in venues beyond the classroom.

“If the public school cannot or will not provide proper summer guidance it is the parent’s business to see that somehow at home the need is adequately met,” he concludes. And perhaps that is the biggest problem underlying this assumption – that teachers, not parents, are best equipped to educate children, and as such, learning cannot go on in the summer because parents are incapable of educating their children.

7. Character Development Is the Goal of Public School

In the decades since Bell wrote these words, it has become increasingly clear that public schools are not focused on character development. Nevertheless, the false assumption to the contrary speaks to a common problem we still have today, namely, that many of us treat the public schools as the “experts” capable of teaching all that a child needs to know. As such, we as parents and responsible members of our churches and communities tend to abandon our responsibility to instill character in today’s children. That’s a tragic failure, for it keeps children from knowing God and from developing the virtuous character which enables our nation to continue.

The good news is that many parents appear to be recognizing these wrong assumptions, evidenced in the fact that only 44% of parents would send their children to public school if they had an opportunity for them to attend elsewhere. Perhaps it’s time to enable more parents to not only recognize these false assumptions, but act on them and remove their children to an environment where they can actually learn and grow.

Subscribe now

—

This article is republished with permission from The Fred and Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image Credit: Flickr-Tom Woodward, CC BY-SA 2.0

At a conference last June, a fellow attendee turned to me and began talking about Zohran Mamdani’s recent primary win in the New York City mayoral race. An economics enthusiast, this individual was aghast that a socialist like Mamdani would likely win such a prominent American political office.

I, on the other hand, approached the news as a matter of fact. After all, when it comes to blue states and cities, what can one do? If they want to go toward socialism, they’ll head down that path regardless of whether I yell, scream, or plead with them to reconsider.

A year later, the blue trend toward socialism only seems to be increasing, a fact highlighted recently by Harry Enten on CNN. Among those identifying as Democrats, 66% have a favorable rating of socialism. Fifteen years ago, that number was only at 50%, a meteoric rise which astounds Enten.

This trend really shouldn’t surprise us. As Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn told Harvard graduates nearly 50 years ago, socialism is just one of the various rungs in the ladder which trends downward toward communism – a ladder whose top rung is liberalism. As Solzhenitsyn explained, “Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.”

Given the chaotic events of recent years, it is safe to say that we’ve been in the radicalism stage of this progression. But judging from Mamdani’s rise, these poll numbers, and other indicators, it seems that we’re actively stepping down from the radical rung to the socialist one on the ladder of decline.

How did we get to this place?

Solzhenitsyn again provides the answer by suggesting that our embrace of humanism – uncoupled from its moorings in Christianity – has landed us in this predicament. The more we try to run from God, the more we head toward socialism and its eventual end, communism.

One does see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of anti-religious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism’s rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his early happiness.

The good news, however, is that the trend down the ladder from liberalism to radicalism to socialism and finally communism can be stopped if we retrace our steps back up the ladder. This can be done by returning to the Christian roots which once moderated the materialism and scientific ideologies that now dominate society.

“[A]s in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted on the ground that man is God’s creature,” Solzhenitsyn explained. “That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility.”

The American founders recognized this tendency when they admitted that our form of republican government can not long endure without a moral and religious people. Thus, as we approach our 250th birthday as a nation, the most important question we must ask ourselves is whether we are willing to reembrace the Christian roots which Solzhenitsyn said are so vital to freedom – not only in our personal lives, but also in our schools, communities, and various levels of government. If not, then we must ready ourselves for the continual onslaught of socialism … and the eventual communism that experts like Solzhenitsyn know are only a step behind.

—

Subscribe now

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image credit: CC BY-SA 4.0

What famous people wear is always the talk of the town, a fact Second Lady Usha Vance is likely beginning to learn. As she recently noted on X, the New York Times published an entire article on the political significance of the coral-colored dress she wore while filming a Father’s Day reading session with her husband Vice President JD Vance.

But Usha Vance went a step further, showing her savvy shopping skills by also dropping a photo of her receipt for the outfit on X. Not only was the dress from the average, middle-America store Old Navy, a place where those on a budget can easily shop, but it was also on sale, reduced to $12.49 from an original price of $50.

To top it off, as I saw someone note in a chat group, she used a coupon, lowering her final payment with a promo code discount of $3.74.

If anyone doubted it, Vance just showed that she’s a true woman, for a true woman will love a dress all the more for the steal of a deal she got on it!

Vance’s bargain shopping, while likely a slap in the face for all the elites at the New York Times, is a refreshing hat tip to those of us in the trenches. It also reflects the wisdom of well-known fashion expert Edith Head, who wrote the following in her book “How to Dress for Success”:

For the woman with a limited budget who cannot afford a completely new wardrobe every year … If you simply can’t resist the urge to have something very, very new-looking, something entirely different, something really far out—indulge yourself with an inexpensive version, knowing that its life will be a short one. Better by far to make this purchase a dress because the investment involved in a coat or a suit will be greater, and a higher price tag calls for at least several season’s wear.

Today’s leaders in Washington tell us that in order to maintain the status quo, we must throw billions at entitlement programs or prop up some social justice cause. Usha Vance, however, shows us that it’s still okay and even admirable to pinch pennies and make a dollar stretch as far as possible.

Today’s social media influencers often hawk name brand handbags or insinuate that we must follow popular trends in order to be important and noticed. Usha Vance, however, tells us that sometimes it’s the simplest fashion from the most practical brands which make us look the nicest.

And finally, today’s culture subtly tells us that our own comfort is more important than how we present ourselves, and thus it’s okay to dress like a slob for places such as work, church, and other outings. Yet Usha Vance shows us that presenting ourselves with class, dignity, and grace – even when it might not be the most physically comfortable – is important and helps further the message we want to send to others, whether verbally or nonverbally.

So next time we’re out shopping, let’s remember the quiet wisdom of Usha Vance. There’s no shame in choosing practical, budget-friendly fashion – particularly if that fashion presents us and the ideas we value most with class and grace.

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal, a project of 1819 News.

Although dating apps are still used by numbers of people, it’s common knowledge that dating app fatigue is real and singles are searching for ways to meet in person. This especially seems to be true since the death of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, whose legacy is increasingly summarized by his advice to “get married and have kids.”

Yet with this (positive) push for young adults to make marriage and family a priority, there’s also evidence of an emerging frustration among singles who note that finding a good mate isn’t as easy as many married couples make it out to be. An example of this erupted on X recently, with one commentator explaining multiple reasons why solid, marriageable singles may be struggling to find “the one.”

In response, author and professor Christina Crenshaw wondered how married couples can help singles in the marriage quest.

“Should we make offline/ in person match making great again?” she asked.

In a word? Yes. But before we all run out there to randomly connect all the single ladies with the partnerless men we know, some nuance and words of caution are necessary. Gathered from my own experience and the insight of others discussing this topic online, here are five things to consider for the aspiring matchmaker—or just the average person who wants to see those they love live happily ever after!

The Social Norms of Yesteryear Are Gone

For those in older generations, it’s easy to wonder why young men don’t just go up to the girls they find attractive, ask them out on dates, and then pop the question with ring in hand shortly thereafter.

Sadly, life isn’t as straightforward and full of common sense as it once was. Even in the late 1980s, philosopher Allan Bloom, writing in “The Closing of the American Mind,” noticed that these courtship norms were evaporating, leaving young people floundering.

“Human beings can, of course, engage in sexual intercourse at any time,“ he wrote. “But today there are none of the conventions invented by civilization to take the place of heat, to guide mating, and perhaps to channel it.

“Nobody is sure who is to make the advances, whether there are to be a pursuer and a pursued, what the event is to mean. They have to improvise, for roles are banned, and a man pays a high price for misjudging his partner’s attitude.”

Thus, in order to help younger people on the path toward marriage, the first step is for us to try to understand the current (moral-less) dating scene and its many pitfalls, rather than immediately guilt-tripping singles for their inability to easily date like past generations did.

Build Friendships With Single Adults

Married couples are understandably busy with their own families, and because of this lack of time, it’s easy to view single people as problems to fix rather than unique people to know. Yet this lack of knowledge is exactly what makes matchmaking an awkward situation for all involved.

However, if a married person will take time to get to know several single people, asking each genuinely about his work, his interests, and what he is looking for in a spouse, that married person will not only show the single individual that he is a person worth knowing and spending time with, but he will also have a better foundation on which to make connections between singles of the opposite sex.

This, in turn, creates a greater likelihood of success in matchmaking. After all, is matching two singles just because they’re unmarried and like Chinese food really the greatest foundation for a marriage? Common sense tells us no, but unfortunately, it’s superficial things like this upon which many of us base our matchmaking.

Take Age Into Consideration

Most of us see a single man and a single woman and automatically think that they can work together. However, what many don’t always consider is age. Just because that young woman in her late 30s is still single doesn’t mean that she would be interested in an unmarried man the age of her parents or, for that matter, a man a dozen years her junior. Both may be wonderful men, but if they don’t match her maturity level, setting them up with one another isn’t a well-thought-out match.

Practice Tactful Hospitality

It’s easy for any of us to only welcome to our homes those who are most like us. Yet if we want to help singles find one another, opening our homes to them—even if they don’t have children or grandchildren like us—can go a long way toward connecting them with other singles.

Invite a mixed crowd of married couples, kids, and singles to your home, and you’ve created a low-pressure situation in which all these demographics can interact, potentially leading to either boyfriend/girlfriend matches or, as mentioned earlier, opportunities for couples to learn about singles in order to better set them up with others later.

Create Spaces for Singles to Interact

Church picnics, community dances, and other civic-minded organizations were once prime places for singles to meet and mingle. Yet as our communities break down and we all grow more isolated, these spaces disappear as well, leaving young people sitting at home swiping left or right. Reviving some of these gatherings and making them normal once again will go a long way toward bringing couples together, even if it’s something as simple as hosting a regular bonfire at a farm or get-to-know-you games at a community center.

Marriage and family are foundational to restoring a solid society, yet it’s clear that many singles are struggling to even get a simple dating relationship off the ground. For those of us who want to see this scenario reverse course, a little careful, tactful matchmaking may be just what the doctor ordered.

Subscribe now

—

This article is republished with permission from The Epoch Times.

Image Credit: StockVault, CCO

“June is bustin’ out all over,” the old Rodgers and Hammerstein song tells us, and escorting its arrival are dozens of weddings, for, as another old show tune explains, “Oh, they say when you marry in June / You’re a bride all your life. And the bridegroom who marries in June / Gets a sweetheart for a wife.”

Sadly, the month of June doesn’t quite ward off divorce the way we might hope. In 2023, Pew Research found that 1 in 3 ever-married Americans have been divorced, meaning that at least some of those June brides and grooms likely didn’t make it “until death us do part.”

While divorce may be less prevalent than it once was, it’s still an unfortunate reality of today’s society. A spouse is unhappy, unfulfilled, or restless, so he or she seeks a divorce in hopes of curing his or her woes. Rational people know intuitively that this is false; what we often don’t realize, however, is just how much worse divorce makes our lives, particularly on the financial front.

Businessman and TV personality Kevin O’Leary recently raised this point during an interview. According to O’Leary, divorce is a flat-out dumb mistake for couples to make because it not only invites government intrusion into their lives, but it also creates a major financial setback from which they may never recover:

Every time you get divorced you pay the woman that you divorced – or man – and you pay the government a third, often, through capital gains and liquidation because you can’t separate all the assets without liquidating them sometimes. So you’ve got the government sitting there, you’ve got the other spouse sitting there – this is the stupidest thing you could ever do. … Because you are going to wipe out up to two-thirds of your wealth.

Given those numbers, O’Leary implies, you had better have a really, really good reason for divorce – at least something other than being somewhat unhappy and discontent.

O’Leary is not the only one to acknowledge the fact that major income loss comes with divorce. According to a 2025 report from the U.S. Census Bureau, which tracks household income for mothers, divorce causes average household income to fall from around $90,000 to $42,000. “While income gradually recovers over time, reaching $60,000 after ten years, it remains roughly 30% below its pre-divorce level a decade after divorce,” the report explains.

Many of us don’t like to consider the moral and ethical effects of divorce – what it will do to a couple’s children, whether it’s okay to break a vow made before God, etc. But, for better or for worse, money talks. And if moral or ethical issues don’t convince a couple to remain together, they should at least consider the reality that they’re likely consigning themselves to a lifetime of financial struggles if they choose to divorce for any of the many capricious reasons that inspire divorce today.

Like O’Leary, American founder James Wilson also recognized how silly it was for couples to divorce solely on the grounds of unhappiness. But Wilson went deeper than just the financial fallout of divorce for individual couples.

“When divorces can be summoned to the aid of levity, of vanity, or of avarice, a state of marriage becomes frequently a state of war or stratagem,” Wilson wrote. In other words, divorces pursued for trivial reasons such as unhappiness cause a nation to self-destruct from within.

“Such was the case in ancient Rome,” Wilson continues. “‘Passion, interest, or caprice,’ says the Historian of her falling state, ‘suggested daily motives for the dissolution of marriage; a word, a sign, a message, the mandate of a freeman declared the separation; the most tender of human connexions was degraded to a transient society of profit or pleasure.’”

Wilson then quotes Cicero, who said, “The first bond of society is marriage, the next, our children.”

It’s easy to get testy when someone suggests that divorce is dangerous and damaging, particularly since it’s an issue that hits a little too close to home for many Americans. “It’s my life!” people say. “I can live it how I want.”

That’s true. But when it comes to divorce, we should recognize that such a choice will likely mean that those same people will be living their lives with far less wealth … while also contributing to the internal destruction of the nation in the process.

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal, a project of 1819 News.

Image Credit: Pexels

We’ve all been there. We’re hanging out with friends, mingling after church, or attending a networking event, yet despite our best efforts, conversation falls flat. This can happen for many reasons, but generally, the two primary issues are either that our conversation partners drop the ball, or that we ourselves can’t think of anything to discuss.

Such experiences can be disheartening, especially for those of us who realize how life-changing a good conversation can be. After all, a simple conversation can encourage someone, change a mind, and sadly, even destroy a reputation.

So how can we ensure that we are quality conversationalists making a positive difference with our words? The Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero pondered a similar question in his work “On Moral Duties,” offering the following five tips to incorporate in our verbal interactions with others.

Think of Others First

It’s incredibly easy to slip into thinking of ourselves while engaged in conversation, focusing on the topics that interest us, or relaying our own recent activities – often in a laborious manner. Cicero, however, tells us to avoid lengthy and wordy speeches, emphasizing the need for politeness when conversing. This means we must not “debar others from their part, as if he had sole right to be heard; but, as in all things else … let him regard alternation.”

So next time you’re in conversation, listen to yourself to evaluate whether you’re rambling on, or if you’re actually taking time to ask questions of your conversation partner and genuinely showing interest in what he has to say.

Don’t Gossip

For some reason, conversations have an uncanny tendency to descend into talking about others. Such a practice is okay if the discussion of others is praiseworthy. But conversations which tear others down must be avoided at all costs, Cicero implies, for the sake of others as well as for for our own reputations. People who malign or slander others behind their backs, Cicero explains, “betray some defect in [their] moral character.”

Choose Your Topics Wisely

If speaking ill of others should be taboo in conversations, then what topics are permissible? Cicero suggests the topics of “private affairs, or politics, or the theory and practice of the arts.” Put differently, opening up about ourselves (discreetly, of course), newsworthy items, or movies, sports, books, plays, and other forms of entertainment are all worthy topics of conversation. “Yet reference must be had to the persons present,” Cicero cautions, “for we are not all interested in the same things, at all times, and in a similar degree.” In other words, read your audience and don’t bore them with information which doesn’t interest them.

Wrap It Up

Some of us are experts in the “long goodbye,” a nice way of saying that we never know how to end a conversation and leave with tact and grace. Cicero admonishes us to “always observe … the length of time to which the pleasure of conversation extends, and as there was reason for beginning, so let there be a limit at which there shall be an ending.” This means that we must watch the body language of our conversation partners. If they seem disinterested or anxious to get going, willingly free them to talk to others by excusing yourself and finding someone else with whom to talk.

Keep Emotions in Check

Although we should be quick to observe any disinterest in others during conversation, we should be careful not to reveal such disinterest in our own body language. Cicero also advises us to “shun passion” in conversation, especially emotions such as anger, “for with anger nothing can be done rightly, nothing judiciously.”

Cicero’s writings are often credited for influencing the American founders as they blazed new trails and birthed a nation with dignity, respect, and wisdom. Given the current tendency to rail against one another and focus on ourselves instead, whether in online debates or in personal conversation, it seems his advice may be just as useful to present-day Americans … if only we will take the time to study it and take it to heart.

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image Credit: Flickr-at.keene, CC BY 2.0

There’s been a lot of chatter in recent weeks about the new movie “Project Hail Mary.” With a tone of pleasant surprise, both average folks and critics have noted that, for once, Hollywood produced a decent, enjoyable film.

I haven’t joined the throngs attending “Project Hail Mary,” so I can’t comment on whether I agree with the above assessment; however, I did have a similar, “why-can’t-Hollywood-make-films-like this” response when I recently stumbled across an old film entitled “The Impatient Years.”

Originally released in 1944, “The Impatient Years” addressed the many hasty marriages that took place during World War II. Actress Jean Arthur plays one such war bride, who meets and marries a man named Andy in four days, then doesn’t see him for a year and a half because he’s flying planes in the Pacific. When Andy comes home on leave, he’s greeted by a wife he barely knows who is more absorbed in their baby and her housekeeping than him. In less than 24 hours, tensions rise and the two seek a divorce, wondering why they were ever interested in each other.

Yet divorce efforts are thwarted when the judge orders them to return to the place where they met and married, retracing the original steps which led to their union. At first resistant and determined to go through the motions in order to divorce, the couple gradually falls back in love despite screwball mishaps. By the end, Arthur’s character tells the judge, “I don’t want a divorce,” explaining that she’s realized that it’s her duty to stick with her husband through thick and thin simply because he is her husband.

“See what you people don’t seem to realize is that it’s after the honeymoon that’s the best about marriage,” she says. “It’s the living everything together with your feet in the housekeeping and your hearts in the sky. And it can be done!”

Such a movie may seem trite and ordinary today in a world of special effects and optics, yet I stepped away from it in awe. Its story was so genuine and heartfelt that it taught a profound life lesson without the cheesiness that often accompanies films which aim to advance morality. To reiterate the question I asked above, “Why is it that Hollywood can’t make films like this anymore?”

One possible answer to that question is found in author Russell Kirk’s book, “Enemies of the Permanent Things.” According to Kirk, the problem with the “Marxist writer” – a description which could easily be applied to many in Hollywood and pop culture at large today – is that his ideology has denied him the main “themes or sources of inspiration” undergirding storytelling in Western civilization.

“The first of these is religion,” Kirk writes, “the description of the order that is more than human and more than natural.” Yet religion is taboo to Marxist storytelling because it is “the opiate of the masses,” he explains.

“The second of these is love: the devotion of a truly human person to a truly human person,” Kirk continues. But in the Marxist imagination, love is not the selfless giving of oneself to another; instead, it “has become the gratification of physical impulse.”

“The third of these is heroism: the triumph of honor, duty, and fortitude,” Kirk says. Yet in the Marxist mentality, “heroism has become service to the production-consumption State: it is servile.”

Finally, Kirk labels “private fortune” as the fourth element of strong storytelling in Western civilization, where “the adventures of human individuals within the labyrinth of a diversified society of classes and orders” exist. Under the ideology of Marxism, however, “private fortune, with the abolition of class and order and social diversity, has grown subversive: it is anathema.”

Now consider these four elements in light of the plot of “The Impatient Years.”

Religion? It’s not explicitly mentioned, yet in advancing marriage as a lifelong commitment, it upholds an institution ordained by God from the very beginning.

Love? Definitely. In fact, it shows how love which starts as physical gratification can grow into something selfless and lasting, a partnership between two struggling souls each seeking the other’s best.

How about heroism? Here we see several examples, including the husband’s willingness to fight for his country, as well as the couple’s realization that it was honorable and right to do their duty and remain true to their vows, regardless of their feelings.

Finally, while this movie doesn’t outright address the conflict between economic classes, it does address the clash which comes between males and females and their different mentalities, a “diversified” reality that many today don’t want to admit exists.

These insights not only explain why many of today’s movies are such a disappointment, but they also teach us how to discern what constitutes high-quality entertainment. When we remove the basic components of a good story – faith, love, heroism, and class differences – because they no longer fit with a politically correct view of the world, we’re left with boredom and apathy. Yet those willing to embrace the discomfort that these topics bring will understand more about themselves and the world around them – and will enjoy themselves while doing so.

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

The big news of the weekend was yet another assassination attempt on President Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Thankfully, the well-dressed officials and celebrities who ducked under the linen- and china-laden tables at the dinner appear to be all right physically, if not traumatized emotionally.

For that reason, I’m a bit hesitant to raise a minor detail, as it can sound trite in such a serious situation. That detail? Fashion. Frugal fashion, to be more specific.

Over on X, Ella Devi, a young fashion influencer recently described by the Daily Mail as a “socialist socialite” who campaigned for New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani last fall, made some comments about Erika Kirk’s wardrobe choice for the dinner. Devi pulled no punches, criticizing Kirk for wearing an old style off the clearance rack.

Since everyone seems to think it’s okay to pile on the Widow Kirk these days, Devi apparently thought she’d join the club.

But the insult may not be as effective as she might think. After all, many – including myself – thought that Kirk looked lovely. She was wearing a dress which accented her figure and coloring and was also appropriate for the occasion. The fact that she may have bought it off the clearance rack only deepens respect for her choice. As another X user commented:

I would agree. In fact, intentionally or not, Kirk’s wardrobe choice offers us three tips to keep in mind when selecting our own wardrobes.

Cost Conscious

For starters, as Devi explains, Kirk seems to have gone the budget route. The dress she wore is currently listed online for $295, perhaps still a bit steep for those of us with a normal budget, but when one realizes that the original price was $1,295, it seems Kirk got a steal of a deal at 80% off.

Such bargain-hunting may be beneath fashion gurus like Devi, but famed Hollywood clothing designer Edith Head didn’t believe penny-pinching and dressing well were mutually exclusive. “Today fashionable clothing is for everyone, in every income bracket, because it is as possible to be well dressed on a limited budget as it is on a vast income,” Head wrote in her book “How to Dress for Success.” “What you wear is up to you.”

Common Colors

A cost-conscious wardrobe also considers color, something which Kirk also appears to have done with her dress choice over the weekend, wearing what Head refers to as “the elegant colors.” Head writes:

In the wardrobes of most well-dressed women you will notice a predominance of the marvelous neutrals. Colors that are quiet and unassuming in themselves but permit beauty of line and design to show through because they do not call attention to themselves. They are the quiet beiges, the heathery tones of gray, white, off-white, and of course, basic black. These are colors that are good fashion every year, and they know no season. They are fundamentals in the wardrobes of movie stars and women of fashion everywhere in the world.

Furthermore, Head notes that such neutrals are smart choices for those on a budget because “they form the background for endless versatility through the addition of different accessories.”

Mod Modesty

Finally, Devi’s comment about Kirk wearing a dress that a 70-year-old woman would wear is likely a backhanded crack that Kirk is covering herself in a non-revealing gown. Yet again, Devi may want to reconsider her comment and take advice from one of the world’s foremost fashion designers, Coco Chanel, instead. “Modesty, what elegance!” Chanel reportedly once said, a more refined way of saying, “modest is hottest.”

Perhaps Devi’s fashion critique of Kirk’s wardrobe choice stems from the fact that the latter’s tragic widowhood has become fair game for mockery, a sad reality in itself. But if she’s critiquing solely on fashion terms, she may want to reconsider criticizing the very things some of history’s leading fashion experts openly embraced. In that vein, the rest of us couldn’t be more on point than to copy the cost, color, and modesty cues that Kirk displayed the other night.

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image Credit: X/AF Post

I’ve spent many happy hours volunteering in a program for inner-city children in Minneapolis since I was a teen. One of my tasks over the years has been helping these children with writing.

There we sit, side by side, with me writing outlines and sentences, while they earnestly race to copy my example. Some get frustrated by their slow pace, while others write with a speed that nearly gives me hand cramps in trying to stay a step ahead.

Occasionally, I’ve slipped into using cursive. This fascinates the kids, and they often try copying it or comment on how they wish they could write like that. They sense that cursive is something special — a secret code into which they would like to gain insight, but sadly aren’t currently learning.

That could change in Minnesota thanks to state Sen. Ann Rest, who is seeking to pass legislation to bring cursive back to schools. As the Minnesota Star Tribune recently reported, Rest wants to see a cursive revival both for nostalgic and historical reasons, noting handwriting’s importance to reading our nation’s founding documents.

Yet Rest goes beyond the traditional, more emotionally oriented arguments for cursive and raises an intriguing new one: Cursive is all the more essential in an AI world.

Yes, that seems rather unbelievable, especially when AI is speedily disrupting whole industries. How could something so old-fashioned as cursive grow more essential when robots are taking over the world? Three reasons come to mind.

First, cursive sets students apart from the masses. This is especially true now, when so few schools teach penmanship, but it would still be true if cursive instruction returned to the classroom as a regular feature. Penmanship fosters uniqueness, allowing children to create an identity and style all their own.

In recent years, fostering identity in children has generated a lot of controversy, particularly as some of the pathways toward it can create irreversible and detrimental changes to a child’s mental and physical well-being. The fight between the left and right over transgender kids is a case in point.

Cursive doesn’t do that, however. It gives children a chance to express themselves but does so in a way that may actually prosper their future without risking lasting pain.

Second, cursive gets students to focus on their humanity. In the past several decades, the education system convinced us that proper learning can’t happen unless children have technology to further their learning. Parents and experts are realizing that this is simply not true — and in fact the opposite may be the case.

Cursive can aid in a healthy retreat from this detrimental reliance on technology for it forces children to slow down, let their brains process and consider ideas, and then actually produce their own thoughts and responses. In the process, they will likely retain more of what they learn, enabling them to file through their own brains for facts and knowledge rather than always turning to Google for the answer.

Finally, cursive, with all its swirls and loops, teaches children to recognize and focus on beauty. As philosopher Roger Scruton tells us in “Beauty: A Very Short Introduction,” those who focus on beauty also get a chance to focus on the health of their souls:

Nobody who is alert to beauty, therefore, is without the concept of redemption — of a final transcendence of mortal disorder into a ‘kingdom of ends.’ In an age of declining faith art bears enduring witness to the spiritual hunger and immortal longings of our species. Hence aesthetic education matters more today than at any previous period in history.

We’re certainly in an age of declining faith. But are we better off without it? Anecdotal and data-driven evidence indicate that Americans are more depressed and lonely than ever before, suggesting that ditching faith isn’t the panacea we’ve been told.

Thus, if faith leads us away from depression and loneliness, and beauty leads us back to faith, and cursive leads us back to beauty, then this simple proposal to reinstate cursive in the classroom may have far more positive ramifications than many envision.

A meandering, backward road? Perhaps. But as C.S. Lewis said, sometimes the most progressive among us are those who look to the old paths, recognize their value and do an about-face in their direction.

Subscribe now

—

This article is republished with permission from The Minnesota Star Tribune.

Image Credit: Pexels

Raise your hand if someone close to you – friend, relative, co-worker – has been personally touched by divorce. Sadly, I’ve been able to raise my hand for all three at certain points of my life, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you can as well. Perhaps you’ve even been divorced yourself.

The prevalence of divorce in our culture is likely why so few say anything against it. Afraid of stepping on toes, we dance around the topic, telling divorcees that they’re “so brave” for separating from their partner, or that they did the right thing to get out and “find themselves.”

Allow me to say what everyone else is scared to say: Such sweet nothings are plain hogwash. In reality, divorce – particularly the easy, no-fault divorce of which so many couples have taken advantage in the last several decades – is likely at the root of many of the societal ills we are dealing with today, particularly those which affect today’s children – children who will become tomorrow’s adults.

“Divorce introduces instability, confusion, and questions of loyalty into the already complex nature of childhood,” Katy Faust and Stacy Manning write in “Them Before Us.” They go on to mention at least four major issues our culture deals with today that have a logical connection to the prevalence of divorce in American families.

Cancel Culture

Can’t deal with the opinion a friend holds? Cancel him. Can’t maneuver the quirks and disagreements of extended family members? Cut them off. Don’t want to come up with rational arguments for an online debate? Block the account. All these are forms of the cancel culture which has spread across our country like a rash in the last 10 years or so.

But is it possible that cancel culture is so prevalent because many in our society learned from their parents’ example that cancelation is the easiest way to deal with problems?

One child of divorce interviewed for Faust and Manning’s book thinks the answer is yes. She recounts how her father disappeared for several weeks, then returned for a brief time, only to leave again, sitting in the car sobbing as he left his family behind, presumably forced out by his wife. “Mom never acknowledged what her decisions caused,” this woman writes. “We learned ‘cancel culture’ at home, and it’s all we know how to do.”

Healthcare Problems

Many of our wallets took a hit earlier this year when higher insurance costs kicked in. Those same high costs are often what drive people to say that healthcare is a right which the government should provide.

Surprisingly, there may be a connection between the high costs of healthcare and divorce. According to Faust and Manning, “Parental divorce has been linked to heart disease, diabetes, and asthma. It’s also been shown to double the likelihood kids will have trouble with their gut, skin, nervous system, genitals, and urinary organs.” Such statistics lead them to conclude, “The correlation between divorced parents and their children’s compromised health are so direct, any serious plan to reduce the cost of healthcare should begin with reducing the divorce rate.”

A novel idea? Yes. But does it make sense? Absolutely. And perhaps the only reason we haven’t acknowledged or thought about this sooner is because too many adults would rather put their own feelings over the physical health and wellbeing of their children.

Falling Test Scores

It’s no secret that American academics are abysmal. According to the most recent Nation’s Report Card, only 35% of 12th-graders are proficient in reading and only 22% are proficient in math. Poor standards and other weak education policies deserve partial blame for such scores, but does home environment impact more than we realize?

“Ask any educator to identify the common factor among kids who struggle in school, and most would agree: It’s a broken home,” Faust and Manning write. “Navigating the transition between two houses, an exhausted single parent, or the merry-go-round of cohabiting parental partners and/or stepfamilies leaves kids with little time or mental energy to memorize multiplication tables.”

Teachers continually say that classroom behavior problems prevent them from teaching. But consider that the instability of broken homes can cause children to act up. Perhaps if we had fewer broken homes, we’d have more orderly classrooms, which in turn would allow teachers to focus on teaching rather than wasting time on discipline, leading to more knowledgeable graduates who can later contribute to the economic and entrepreneurial growth of the nation.

Family Formation

Late last year, Pew Research revealed that only 67% of 12th-graders say they’ll likely choose to get married, down from 80% in 1993. One can only surmise that if these declining marriage rates hold, birthrates will decline also – dangerous territory considering that the “U.S. fertility rate … reached a record low in 2024.”

Researchers have long connected the hesitation to marry and have kids with those whose own parents divorced when they were children. What many may not realize, however, is how high the likelihood of divorce actually is for these kids. Faust and Manning write:

Children of divorce whose parents never remarried are 45 percent more likely to divorce, and those whose divorced parents married stepparents were 91 percent more likely to divorce compared with adults raised in intact biological families. … [O]ne and done ought to be your mantra because the second time is no charm.

If we really want to change culture, then we must confront the uncomfortable realities that are causing problems in that same culture. Just from these few examples alone, it seems divorce is a major root of many of our issues. Is it time we swallow our pride and our own emotional comfort as adults and do away with no-fault divorce?

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image Credit: Pexels

For Christians around the world, this is the most important week of the year, leading toward Good Friday when Jesus Christ was crucified, and culminating in Easter Sunday, when Christ achieved victory over death through His resurrection.

But what about for the non-Christian – or even for the Christian who greets the event as nothing more than an annual tradition? Is Easter just a day to gather with family and friends, hunt for eggs, and chow down on chocolate? Or is there actual historical and archeological evidence pointing to the events of Holy Week and the importance of remembering and celebrating them?

Archeologist Joel Kramer would answer the preceding question in the affirmative. According to Kramer, the biblical record is not just a collection of stories thrown together to advance a religion; instead, it is a wonderful guidebook that matches the evidence excavated under centuries of earth.

An example of where the biblical text, archeology, and historical sources all coalesce is the place called Gabbatha, or the stone pavement, where Jesus was tried by Pontius Pilate on that Friday 2,000 years ago.

Until the mid-1970s, Kramer explains in a video produced by Expedition Bible, the western city wall of Jerusalem was largely covered by dirt. But then archeologists set to work scraping away the layers and eventually discovered the wall enclosing what is believed to be the palatial first-century palace built by Herod the Great, who died about 30 years before Christ’s crucifixion. Historical sources such as Josephus endorse this viewpoint, while another first-century historian, Philo, confirms that Pilate would have dwelt in this palace at the time of the crucifixion.

Speaking about Jesus’ trial before Pilate, Kramer says, “There’s a lot of description in the Gospel of John that they’re going in and out – Pilate’s going in and out, he’s bringing Jesus in and out – so there has to be a gate.”

Kramer goes on to explain how only one gate was found along this wall. By that gate are remnants of a stone pavement, steps leading up to a platform, and a stone judgment seat upon which the ruler would have sat when trying a case. Ample room stretches out in front of this judgment seat, showing the area where the mob might have gathered to demand the release of the criminal Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus. Furthermore, this same gate leads directly to the country, a fact which matches the biblical description of Simon of Cyrene being grabbed to carry Jesus’ cross when he came into the city from the country.

In a separate video, Kramer explains how archeological finds and historical tradition also correspond with the biblical description of the crucifixion site and the nearby tomb from which Jesus emerged alive on the following Sunday. Just a few of these data points include archeological evidence that the site was once a garden and that it was outside another first-century city gate.

Today, many non-Christians sit back and consider Christianity a crutch for the weak, an unscientific system that can’t be verified by cold, hard facts. And sadly, many Christians, while believing in their heart the tenets of their faith, remain ungrounded and unaware of the solid historical, geographical, and archeological evidence which testifies to the reality and truth of that faith. Both examples perfectly display the truth of which the Jewish prophet Hosea spoke, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

This Easter, we should heed that challenge, determining not to be one of the many who shipwreck – or never consider belief at all – just because we haven’t taken time to go deeper and examine the evidence for the biblical record that’s right there waiting for us.

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image Credit: YouTube/Expedition Bible

Several years ago, I joined some friends on a trip to Mackinac Island, a place famous for its Victorian culture and ban on automobiles.

After bicycling around the island, we decided to splurge and have tea at The Grand Hotel, which is as polished as its name sounds. Before trooping in for tea, however, we stopped in a nearby restroom to exchange our sports clothes for something a little classier, for the hotel requires its patrons to dress up before entering its domain. Such a change was a bit of a bother, but in the long run, it made me value my experience far more. Because my outward appearance was more polished, my inward self could relax and savor both the food and my surroundings.

The good ol’ Grand Hotel isn’t alone in its dress standards anymore. Ruth’s Chris Steak House recently announced a new dress code for its patrons, posting the following on its website:

BUSINESS CASUAL – PROPER ATTIRE REQUIRED PLEASE.

Kindly remove all hats when entering the restaurant. Guests wearing ball caps are asked to dine in the bar/lounge.

The following attire is not permitted in our dining rooms:

Gym wear, pool attire, tank tops, clothing with offensive graphics or language, revealing clothing or exposed undergarments.

The famous steakhouse was mocked for these (rather minimal) standards by fellow restaurant chain Chili’s, which claimed that you only have to be dressed in order to enter their restaurant.

It’s an admittedly touché response … but does it really win Chili’s any points in the long run? Put differently, if money were no object, would we rather go to the trouble of dressing up to sit and enjoy the upscale Ruth’s Chris than go to Chili’s just so we can bum around in our shorts and t-shirts? Most would choose the former without question.

Some might consider this snobbery. The dress controversy between Chili’s and Ruth’s Chris, however, is really a microcosm of the larger culture war which has raged over of how we present ourselves to the world for years.

The viewpoint of Chili’s is the one toward which our society has been slouching for many years. “Come as you are,” they say, “we won’t judge!” Thus, what once was considered acceptable dinner attire – a nice dress for women and a sport coat for men – gradually morphed into jeans and a blouse, then booty shorts, crop tops, or sweatshirts and pajama pants.

Americans cling to such clothes, loving the comfort that they bring above all else. Yet at the same time, we also complain about how difficult it is to get ahead in the world and how hard it is to get others to respect us. What if the two are related? Might we see more success in our relationships, jobs, and other aspects of life if we didn’t cling so obstinately to the Chili’s dress code of “anything goes”?

Famed Hollywood costumer Edith Head would have said yes. In her book, “How to Dress for Success,” Head wrote, “No matter in which direction your strivings for success are pointed, what you wear and how you look can make the difference between moving steadily toward your goal or just rocking back and forth in the same spot.” In other words, if you want monotony and stagnation, keep choosing those casual, comfortable clothes when you go shopping, dine at restaurants, attend church, or even go to the office.

But those who want to move forward in life should consider a different tactic. Although it sounds a bit crass, Head encourages us to think of ourselves “as a product” that needs selling. And in order to sell that product, one must seriously consider how to improve it.

“The difference between ‘packaging’ you and a static product like a can of beans is considerable,” Head goes on to explain. “The beans are going only one place. You are going many places, and the way you look in each special situation, at different times of the day and on varied locations calls for a variety of looks, a number of moods and a diversified wardrobe.”

If we can control nothing else, we can always decide how we dress, Head says. “When you know what you want out of life—the areas of success you desire—then it is easy to dress ‘in character’ to create the most exciting, pleasing, attractive appearance for your audience.”

Yet so many of us do the exact opposite. What, after all, do our sweats, ripped jeans, and skimpy shorts and shirts say about us? Do they signal that we are a “product” that is clean, neat, alert, responsible, and quality material worthy of advancement … or do they signal that we are dumpy slobs, more interested in lazing through life and getting by with minimal effort?

It’s completely our own choice as to which of these options we’ll follow … but just remember, that choice may be the difference between a Ruth’s Chris or a Chili’s life.

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image Credit: PickPik

Not wanting to spend the summer reading short works of fluff in order to get as many books as possible under my belt, I decided on a more creative approach and began reading the entire Bible, counting each of its 66 internal books as an individual one. (Hey, it’s reasonable! After all, most of the individual books are far longer and deeper than the books I would have grabbed from the Young Adult Fiction section at my local library!)

As you may guess, I wasn’t one of the contest winners. Yet I was a winner in the long run, for six months later, I completed the first of many marches from Genesis through Revelation.

Such a habit likely sounds odd to many ears, yet as I learned recently, I am not as alone in reading the Scriptures as people would assume. As the chart below from a recent Barna poll shows, Bible reading has soared in recent months, particularly among younger men and women.

Charlie Kirk’s death and the impact it had is the overarching explanation many give for this surge. However this trend came about, I sincerely hope these individuals reading the Bible will continue.

Why? Religious reasons are first and foremost, obviously. Those aside, there are many other non-religious benefits to reading the Bible cover-to-cover that many fail to realize, benefits which the American founders readily acknowledge in their writings.

Benjamin Franklin, for instance, is living proof that the Bible provides a solid foundation for thinking, writing, and speaking. Franklin “claimed he had read the whole Bible by the time he was 5,” Baylor professor Dr. Thomas Kidd explains, and it showed, for “Franklin was constantly referencing the Bible,” in his floor speeches during the Constitutional Convention as well as in his many essays. Had Franklin not read the Bible so extensively, one wonders whether the aphorisms of “Poor Richard’s Almanac” would still be quoted with such regularity today.

The Bible doesn’t just ground our thinking, however. It also grounds our morality. “By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral Subjects,” John Adams wrote in an 1807 letter to Benjamin Rush. “It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. It contains a faithful representation of all its follies, Vices & Crimes.”

Noah Webster concurred with that last thought, noting in his 1832 “History of the United States,” “All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”

A third reason why we should regularly read the Bible is that it helps us to understand the history of our nation and the thought processes of its founders. Citing a study by political scientist Donald Lutz, Dr. Daniel Dresibach explains that “the Bible was cited more frequently [by the founders] than any European writer or even any European school of thought, such as Enlightenment liberalism.” He continues:

The book of Deuteronomy alone was the most frequently cited work, followed by Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws. In fact, Deuteronomy was referenced nearly twice as often as John Locke’s writings, and the apostle Paul was mentioned about as frequently as Montesquieu and Blackstone, who would have been the two most-cited secular theorists.

Dresibach lends further credence to the idea that the Bible was central to founding our constitutional republic by noting that, among others, John Adams and John Dickenson both referred to the Bible as “the most republican book” in existence.

Perhaps that’s why American founder Benjamin Rush believed there was a great need for the Bible to be read in schools. Or maybe he just said that because he recognized that familiarizing children with the Bible at young ages offered them “the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and publick temporal happiness.” What more could one ask for in a constitutional republic than happy and prosperous citizens?

That same happiness and prosperity seem to be lacking today. In its stead, we find bickering, depression, a disdain for the past, and a lack of knowledge in general.

I wonder how much of that would change if more of us took this new trend of Bible reading to heart, not just for a few verses once a week, but for a few chapters day after day, month after month, year after year? Perhaps we would begin to see why the founders valued the Bible so highly – and how they so wisely founded one of the greatest nations to ever exist.

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image credit: Pexels

“Racist!”

“Misogynist!”

“NAZI!!!”

You may be a member of the Amish community if you haven’t heard someone hurl one of these insults at another individual. Given our cultural climate, you yourself have likely been on the receiving end of such demeaning labels.

I count myself in that latter club. “Misogynist” is the label that I’ve had slapped on me over the years, a fact I still scratch my head over, as I enjoy being a woman and simply want to help my fellow females enjoy their womanhood as well.

Such labels are certainly frustrating, yet they shouldn’t be a cause for stress. The reality is, those who throw around such names do so at the expense of their own reputations, for name-calling is usually a sign that a person can’t hold their own in a factual debate or argument.

Although it seems like calling people Nazis or other names is only a recent trend, it’s apparently been around for at least a quarter of a century, which political commentator Patrick Buchanan records in his 2001 book “Death of the West,” noting the popularity of “calling opponents Nazis, fascists, and Klansmen.”

Buchanan lists several rewards that those who use such puerile name-calling can reap.

First, it ostracizes the enemy with a divide-and-conquer approach. The person who uses these insults, Buchanan notes, “places an opponent outside the company of decent men” and “discredits in advance what he says.” A person separated from his comrades automatically loses his moral support and will to fight, while being framed as one of “the baddies” lands a serious psychological blow.

Second, such name-calling puts the opponent automatically on the defense, for it “forces him to defend his character rather than his positions.” Those playing defense are already in a losing position, yet in this case, the losing position is made even worse, for it forces a person to focus on the superficial, physical aspects of the debate, rather than the deeper, thoughtful aspects of his argument.

Finally, throwing such names at opponents strokes the pride and ego of the one doing so. “The more one demonizes an enemy, the more one ‘heroizes’ oneself,” Buchanan writes.

Perhaps this last reason best explains why name-calling is growing so prevalent, for, in a day when podcasters, commentators, and influencers jostle for likes, clicks, and shares like fish at feeding time, hurling baseless insults at others is the quickest, albeit most mindless, way to stand out from the crowd and eliminate the competition.

But Buchanan’s statement also hints at a potential solution to our insult-hurling culture, namely, the restoration of true heroes.

What makes a hero? Most of us would say a hero is someone who completes great exploits or does courageous things.

Mid-20th century thinker and author Russell Kirk had a different definition for hero, however. To him, a hero is one who practices the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance – and perhaps even the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. The opposite of these virtues, Kirk writes, are the “Seven Deadly Sins [of] pride, avarice, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth.”

Ironically, those same seven sins are at the root of the name-calling that is so widespread today. As mentioned above, calling others names props ourselves up, putting us in a position to gain (pride, avarice, lust, and gluttony). It simultaneously pulls others down (anger, envy), while also giving us the easy way out of arguments (sloth).

To decrease the problem of mindless, vitriolic name-calling, then, it seems that we must cancel such sins by instilling the virtues instead. And these virtues, Kirk notes, are best taught not so much by tutors, but by “the men of the old families” – the fathers and the grandfathers passing down their wisdom and insight from generation to generation.

Yet present fathers, grandfathers, and solid, whole families in general have been going extinct for many years. Without fathers around, there will be less virtue. And with less virtue, there will be more of the Seven Deadly Sins. And with more of the Seven Deadly Sins, there will clearly be more heightened insults and name-calling, something of which, let’s face it, we’re all growing quite weary.

A vicious cycle? Yes. But even the most vicious cycles can be broken. The question is, are we willing to swim upstream and choose a different way, embracing true heroism while rejecting the cop-out of mindless name-calling?

Subscribe now

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image Credit: Pexels

Not so very long ago, school districts and education leaders told us that technology in the classroom was essential to the success of our students. “An iPad on every desk” became the new “chicken in every pot” slogan, as experts tried to convince us that technology could be a panacea for the nation’s test scores.

Well, they convinced us. And now some parents are working to extract their children from this technological bill of goods that we were sold.

According to NBC News, parents like Julie Frumin and Emily Cherkin strongly believe that the heavy presence of technology in the classroom – particularly through Chromebooks and iPads – is harming their children, so much so that they took steps to ensure that their children were instructed in the classroom with physical media such as books, pens, and paper instead. Now other parents are following in their footsteps.

Reasons abound for such a drastic, upstream move. Some parents cite health concerns, as their children get headaches from staring at screens all day. Others seek to eliminate distraction, wanting their children to focus on learning rather than watching videos, shopping online, or even viewing inappropriate content. Growing research on the increased learning retention of hard-copy education over screen-based learning is another factor.

Yet the hidden dangers of technological invasion are also a driving force in this growing parental choice. “I want them to be taught through humans,” Frumin told NBC, highlighting many Americans’ growing concern regarding the explosion of AI-generated academic resources. Other parents hint at the data collection that occurs through a student’s personal classroom device – information that parents don’t want shared with strangers.

These reasons are all good and understandable, yet there is a deeper underlying reason that should cause parents to consider making a similar move in their respective school districts. It can be summed up by the old phrase, “know thyself.”

Consider the following passage from Neil Postman’s famous book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”

“Television is our culture’s principal mode of knowing about itself,” Postman writes. “Therefore—and this is the critical point—how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged.”

In other words children will perceive themselves and their place in society based on the images that their school screens feed them, whether that image be good or bad.

“It is not merely that on the television screen entertainment is the metaphor for all discourse,” Postman continues. “It is that off the screen the same metaphor prevails.”

That metaphor in turn translates into real life, Postman says, corrupting the basic elements of good communication and thought:

In courtrooms, classrooms, operating rooms, board rooms, churches and even airplanes, Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas; they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials.

Although written at a time when television was the major technological force in society, Postman’s words can easily be adapted to the effects of social media, videos, or other online elements. When we train children to be dependent on screens – even in their locus of education – they will not learn to become independent thinkers who can aptly discuss ideas or debate arguments; they will instead be easily propagandized, sucked in by a steady stream of images.

The outcome of such a state, is the death of a culture, a fact Postman explains elsewhere in his book:

When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility.

None of us want to see that cultural death to happen in our country – or in the minds of our children. Rather than fight what goes on the screens our children use in school, as so many have bravely done in recent years, perhaps it’s time to take things a step farther. Instead of plowing ahead with more and more technology incorporated into our school classrooms, is it time to reverse course and go back to the good ol’ fashioned way of instruction and learning?

Subscribe now

—

This article is republished with permission from The Fred and Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image Credit: Pexels

If the last month or so has taught us anything, it’s that pretty much every area of life in Minnesota has been affected by the presence of ICE.

The education system is no exception. As a recent Minnesota Star Tribune article explained, the reality of ICE’s presence in Minnesota has weighed heavily on school leaders, particularly as they contemplate what reduced attendance due to fearful students staying home could do to their school financials next year. For example, Fridley Superintendent Brenda Lewis said upwards of $100,000 could be lost in her district with just 25 fewer students on the attendance rolls.

Such fears are understandable. No one likes budget cuts. Yet what I find troubling about this is the underlying assumption that more dollars automatically equal a better education.

We’ve been sold this line year after year. It comes up in practically every election as we’re asked to vote for more money to fund school operating costs or other needs — all for the children, of course.

Minnesota now spends over $18,000 per student each year. What kind of educational outcomes does all this spending get us? As a billboard last fall by the Ciresi Walburn Foundation noted, only 50% of Minnesota’s students can read at grade level. But even that number is pretty positive when one digs through Minnesota Department of Education records to look at individual districts. Consider the aforementioned Fridley school district, for example, where only 34% of students were proficient in reading last year — meaning that two-thirds of its students were not proficient.

In fact, as other billboards from the Ciresi Walburn Foundation pointed out, Mississippi — long known for its bottom-of-the-pile position in just about everything — is beating our state in teaching kids to read.

That’s not based on selective data, either. As a recent New York Times column by Nicholas Kristof explains, Mississippi is one of the leading lights in education today. The state ranks first in the nation in fourth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math, after adjusting for poverty and racial demographics. Neighboring Louisiana and Alabama are following Mississippi’s formula with great success — so much so that Kristoff suggests other states should follow their lead.

The ironic thing, however, is that these states are pulling off such miracles with far fewer dollars than Minnesota. Of these three states, Louisiana has the highest spending per student at $13,760 per year — at least $4,000 less than Minnesota forks out for each student.

But these three states also share another thing in common: education savings accounts (ESAs). Instead of having tax dollars go to the school district, ESAs allow education funds to follow the student to the school that best suits his or her needs. Similar to an HSA account, ESAs typically put around $7,000 in a digital wallet that parents can use toward tuition, books and other approved education expenses.

Enacted in nearly 20 states now, ESAs are beneficial to multiple parties. Children benefit because ESAs offer them a chance to get into smaller schools with more tailored education options. Parents benefit because they get a chance to direct their tax dollars toward education options that actually help their struggling children while also easing the strain on their pocketbooks.

And while it may surprise some, teachers can also benefit from ESAs because they provide the financial means for families to pay a high-quality instructor to tutor or head up a micro-school — the increasingly popular modern version of the old one-room schoolhouse. Such options allow teachers to break free from the administrative burdens and behavioral chaos of traditional schools that continually hinder their instruction time.

Amazingly, polling suggests that ESAs are a bipartisan issue, as nearly 70% of Minnesotans support them. That’s a refreshing statistic in this time of upheaval, division and uncertainty.

Instead of worrying about how declining attendance may affect next year’s education budgets, perhaps it’s time to instead focus on enacting ESAs in our state, enabling both sides of the aisle to come together and do something positive for the state’s children and families.

Subscribe now

—

This article is republished with permission from the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Image Credit: Pexels