WHY AMERICA’S CHILD SUPPORT LAWS VIOLATE BASIC BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES; PART 1; Bribing the judiciary with regards to both child support enforcement awards and child support enforcement.
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.
413-445-6789
Sunday, June 03, 2007
It may not generally be known that current child support and family laws violate basic biblical principles. Taken alone, any one of these laws works a great evil. Taken together, they form a whole greater than the sum of its parts that visits great wrong on those that must pay child support. Our current child support laws violate basic Christian principles, which I hope to make the subject of multiple series of articles: It is my hope—and I do not know if I will have time to do so, to write a series of articles on this subject. I do not write against child support in the abstract—I write against the current child support laws in the United States. So if you write, “Rinaldo Del Gallo thinks child support is unbiblical, you lie.” I am speaking only of the laws as they actually exist.
PART 1: Bribing a Judge Through State Financial Incentives
THE LAW: Under federal laws, states get increased federal funding if they collect more in child support, creating a financial incentive (of which some call a “bribe”) to increase child support awards and to enforce existing ones even if it appears that the father cannot make payments.
BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE: It is unbiblical to take a payoff or bribe with regard to lawsuits.
RELEVANT BIBBLICAL PASSAGES (New International Version):
1 Samuel 8:3 “But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.”
Amos 5:12 “For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.” (Whole chapter is rough on Israel and speaks of the condemnation to face Israel.)
Exodus 23:8 “Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous.
Deuteronomy 16:19 “Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.”
1 Samuel 8:3 “But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.”
1 Samuel 12:3 “Here I stand. Testify against me in the presence of the LORD and his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken? Whom have I cheated? Whom have I oppressed? From whose hand have I accepted a bribe to make me shut my eyes? If I have done any of these, I will make it right.”
2 Chronicles 19:7 “Now let the fear of the LORD be upon you. Judge carefully, for with the LORD our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.”
Job 15:34 “For the company of the godless will be barren, and fire will consume the tents of those who love bribes.”
Job 36:18 “Be careful that no one entices you by riches; do not let a large bribe turn you aside.”
Psalm 15:5 “[It is good to be a person] who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.”
Psalm 26:9-11 “Do not take away my soul along with sinners, my life with bloodthirsty men, in whose hands are wicked schemes, whose right hands are full of bribes. But I lead a blameless life; redeem me and be merciful to me.”
Proverbs 6:34-35 “For jealousy (provoked by adultery) arouses a husband’s fury, and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge. He will not accept any compensation; he will refuse the bribe, however great it is.”
Proverbs 15:27 “A greedy man brings trouble to his family, but he who hates bribes will live.”
Proverbs 17:8 “A bribe is a charm to the one who gives it; wherever he turns, he succeeds.”
Proverbs 17:23 “A wicked man accepts a bribe in secret to pervert the course of justice.”
Proverbs 21:14 “A gift given in secret soothes anger, and a bribe concealed in the cloak pacifies great wrath.”
Proverbs 29:4 “By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down.”
Ecclesiastes 7:7 “Extortion turns a wise man into a fool, and a bribe corrupts the heart.”
Isaiah 1:23 “Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless.”
Isaiah 5:23 “[Woe to those] who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent.”
Isaiah 33:15-16 “He who walks righteously and speaks what is right, who rejects gain from extortion and keeps his hand from accepting bribes, . . . , this is the man who will dwell on the heights, whose refuge will be the mountain fortress. His bread will be supplied, and water will not fail him.”
Ezekiel 22:12 “In you men accept bribes to shed blood; you take usury and excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD.”
Amos 5:12 (Very relevant) “For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.”
Micah 3:11—12 “Her [Israel’s] leaders judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a price, and her prophets tell fortunes for money. Yet they lean upon the LORD and say, “Is not the LORD among us? No disaster will come upon us. . . . Therefore because of you, Zion will be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble, the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.”
Micah 7:3-12 “Both hands are skilled in doing evil; the ruler demands gifts, the judge accepts bribes, the powerful dictate what they desire— they all conspire together. The best of them is like a brier, the most upright worse than a thorn hedge. The day of your watchmen has come, the day God visits you. Now is the time of their confusion. . . Therefore because of you, Zion will be plowed like a field, Jerusalem will become a heap of rubble, the temple hill a mound overgrown with thickets.”
Suffice it to say, the Old Testament of the Bible has condemned bribes—and has done so over and over and over again. If the government were to bribe states so that it would receive “federal incentives” if larger damages were awarded in particular cases, or debtors were shaken down harder, this would be anathema to biblical principles taught in the Bible.
ANALYSIS, COMPARING THE BIBLICAL PRINCIPLE TO CURRENT CHILD SUPPORT LAW IN THE UNITED STATES
Currently, under the law, the federal government pays the state governments under a formula: the more the government collects in child support, the more money it receives in federal assistance. Fathers paying child support call it a bribe. The government calls it “federal incentives.” This formula started with the Child Support Enforcement Amendment, which in 1984 federalized much of Child Support Law, though this was clearly left to the states in the constitution. Make no mistake about it; the federal government pays more money to states if they charge more in child support with what they call “federal incentives,” and are able to extract more from child support debtors.
If a court charges a great deal in child support, if it can wrangle the money out of a man by threatening him with jail so that his family must pay to keep him out (fathers often call this “ransom”), the state gets more money. The language the government uses is largely euphemistic—such as the way the army uses “terminate with extreme prejudice” to mean “kill.” When the federal government officials claim state governments are not charging enough in child support, or when they show leniency on the father because of his poverty or inability to pay and do not extract monies from him, the federal politician speaks of “inefficiency.” When men are forced to pay more in child support, the system is being “productive.” The whole political-speak is as if the discussion was on creating economic efficiencies, not paying off states for outcomes in its judicial proceedings. It is funny how blunt, plain talk makes a program seem so unwholesome and foul.
When I say this, i.e., when I say government officials favor actually bribing states to demand more in child support and collect more on existing debts, and using such terms as “increasing efficiency” or “productivity,” as if they were making widgets with less waste, I speak literally and not loosely. This was the actual language used by the government officials. If you don’t believe me, check out this website which has the testimony of David Gray Ross, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Before the House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources, March 20, 1997, with his economy speak. There are numerous other quotes like it on the Internet.
Text http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t970320a.html
Whether it is “increasing efficiency” and increasing “productivity” as Mr. Ross put it a decade ago, or “taking a bribe” as many fathers paying child support put it, please remember, in value neutral terms, the federal government pays more money to the states if their courts charge more in child support, and if those courts can eventually force the father to pay what was charged of him, no matter what the circumstance the father faces. And this is a major problem, because judges should remain neutral in matters, and not feel that favoring one side in a civil suit will redound to the benefit of state coffers. Often, the monies are spent on the court system itself—if you define, and I think this could be fairly done, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue and other similar agencies in other states as part of the court network.
(My research reveals, parenthetically, that Judge David Gray Ross is on the chair of the Children’s Rights Council. For this I heartily commend him. My comments still stand however. To read more about the Honorable David Gray Ross at the website of the Children’s Rights Council, click HERE
This sentence on a government website (the Congressional Budget Office), explains the current “federal incentive” system for child support: “Under current law, the federal government pays each state a percentage of all of the child support it collects.”
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=359&type=0&sequence=0
It is very simple—less joint custody, more divorce, more imputed income, and higher child support guidelines means more state money. This isn’t an opinion—it’s a fact. The opinion rest in whether this is fair or just. As Phyllis Schlafly wrote in a column May 11, 2005.
“In 1984, Congress passed the Child Support Enforcement Amendment which required the states to adopt voluntary guidelines for child-support payments. In 1988, Congress passed the Family Support Act, which made the guidelines mandatory, along with criminal enforcement, and gave the states less than a year to comply. . . .
“The states collect the child-support money and deposit it in a state fund, but the federal government pays most of the administrative costs and, therefore, dictates the way the system operates through mandates and financial incentives. The federal government pays 66 percent of the states’ administrative overhead costs, 80 percent of computer and technology-enhancement costs, and 90 percent of DNA testing for paternity.
“In addition, the states share in a nearly-half-billion-dollar incentive reward pool based on whatever the state collects. The states can get a waiver to spend this bonus money anyway they choose.
“The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy collects from the feds.
“Follow the money. The less time that non-custodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they must pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.
“The states have powerful incentives to separate fathers from their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain the fathers’ high-level support obligations even if their income is drastically reduced, and to hang onto the father’s payments as long as possible before paying them out to the mothers.
Imagine, if you will, the cry there would be if there were “federal incentives” so that states received more monies all depending on the amount of slip and fall damages, or medical malpractice judgments, awarded in any given year, so as to give judges an incentive to grant higher damages in slip and fall cases or medical malpractice cases. People would be screaming “bloody murder.” Business owners and doctors would be livid and millions of dollars would go into lobbying for change.
Even if such monies do not sway judges—and it is impossible to believe many if not most are not—it is the appearance of impropriety that also causes great concern. Obviously, to maintain the neutrality of the system, federal assistance should never be predicated on monetary damages assessed in a lawsuit, whether it is a child support action or any other action. This is sort of a no-brainer on maintaining the neutrality of the courts, but commonsense isn’t always common on Capitol Hill.
As one article in the North County Gazette put it:
“State family court judges, agencies, and both public and private professionals now have a pecuniary interest in establishing single-parent households in which the majority of a child’s time is limited by court order to be spent with only one parent. There is now a disincentive for a child to be equally placed with both parents where those parents share equal responsibilities while maintaining their own homes and lifestyles. If the state family courts do not produce an absent or “non-custodial” parent through their orders, the courts would effectively exempt the state (and any associated professional beneficiaries) from receiving the billions of dollars in federal funding which is offered through compliance with federally imposed welfare guidelines.”
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/022806SSAndCustody.html
As was stated in TUMEY v. STATE OF OHIO, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) by Supreme Court Justice and former President Taft (pictured left): “[T]he requirement of due process of law in judicial procedure is not satisfied by the argument that men of the highest honor and the greatest self-sacrifice could carry it on without danger of injustice. Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the state and the accused denies the latter due process of law.”
It is against basic biblical principles to bribe a court through monies paid to state governments based upon how much a judge awards damages in a particular case. While this principle would always be true in any civil action, it is especially un-Christian if you are creating financial incentives for the destruction of the family or single custody households that are fatherless.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
amfortas said,
Rinaldo, moral living is not supported by the Bible. The Tome is not a Holy Book of Writ for the sensible man. Sure, there are the odd bits of support for reason amd morality but in the main it is the meandering verbiage of shepherds on speed, replete with urgent calls to kill anyone who you don’t like very much and many more who are completely innocent of doing any wrong to speak of at all. All justified by blaming God.
Is it an ‘American’ thing?
Moral living and moral laws depend upon reason and morality, not the writings of nutters from 3000 years ago. If it were we would have to accept similar nuuters’ demands by Islamists. Their Book is based on the same Abrahamic junkie nonesense.
Crikey even Jesus threw upp his hands in despair of people who continually quoted scripture. He called them hypocrits.
Please, Rinaldo, you are a lawyer. Use reason. Try reading some of the work of David Hodgson, Judge of the Supreme Court of NSW. He has a much better grasp of how to arrive at reasoned arguement. You do your case no good at all by grasping at burning straws any more than burning bushes.
June 3, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Lloyd selberg said,
Well reasoned argument with important message. Excellent work!!
In defense of Judge David Gray Ross, I have a friend’s unimpeachable statements that Judge Ross was literally in tears during an evening phone conversation over presidential order to work with Donna Shalala and “cook the books” regarding child support collection in anticipation of making child support collection a political issue in the ’96 election.
I offer this history such that everyone fully comprehends the important effects of politics in a democratic society.
“The truth is not always the same as the majority decision.” - Pope John Paul II
June 3, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III said,
I enjoy your spirited comment. In defense of my own article, stripped out of the biblical passages which don’t appeal to you for whatever reasons, it makes sense–the federal government should never attempt to interfere with court cases by providing “financial incentives” that are bound to influence judges. If the financial incentives to increase child support don’t really work, why have them in the first place?
And thanks Lloyd. Suprised you now so much about this judge, the Honorable David Gray Ross. I feel bad that I had so slam him a bit, but it appears that a decade ago he did say some unfortunate things.
June 3, 2007 at 11:06 pm
amfortas said,
No I am not an atheist. I think both the Jewish and the Christians religions do themselves and all men and women with any sense of right and wrong a disservice by not recognising and repudiating the tone and much of the content of the Old Testament. Therein lies account after account of gross immorality and egregious, gratuitous violence attributed to God, ordered by God, along with as-you-were changes in orders every five minutes leading to yet more death and destruction of innocents. It is an apalling text. Hardly a commendable or a quotable document to present in a Court (well maybe the Family one. They don’t care for sense there either). In fact, the Family Court probably already uses it as a model of how to screw a society and elevate ‘chosen ones’ with a total lack of morality of their own by dispossessing the ones who build cities. Apparantly God only liked tents and throw-cushions.
Poor old God. All sorts of nutters, old and new, still attribute their own wierd ideas to Him. His main reason for being to many is as an excuse for their own excesses.
He doesn’t like this one bit. Why, only the other night, He appeared to me and said, “Amfortas, old son, I am getting mightily pissed off with everyone saying this and that about me. I would smite them mightily, but as you well know, I am rather an old pussy cat and love you all despite your obvious failings. I should not have listened to that first-cut go at humanity, Adam. I had a Mk 2 Human in mind to reward him with for the gardening work. A Perfect One, all curvey and sweetness and light. But no. Would he listen? Do any of you? All I needed was an arm and a leg but would he give them up? No way. Squealed like a stuck pig - wot I hadn’t got around to at that time - and demanded that I ‘do what you can’ with a spare rib. I ask you. What did he think I am? Got any tea brewing?”
Rinaldo, there was a splendid article by Hodgson in the ‘Quadrant’ journal recently, confronting Dawkins. Hodgson also wrote ‘The Mind Matters’ a first class book that weaves law with philosophy and would you believe Quantum Physics. I recommend him to you.
I am a Catholic by the way.
June 4, 2007 at 1:04 am
Roger Knight said,
Perhaps because to do so would be to admit a truly inconvenient truth!
June 4, 2007 at 1:26 am
conservativation said,
I also submit that to prescribe morality to self….or reason as you put it, is massively dangerous. To be honest I wouldnt be a bit comfortable with anyones personal morality, through and through, save my own…and most “reasonable” people would feel the same…that is a bad idea.
The urge to criticize Christianity by way of crazies claiming to do wierd things in its name, or to focus as you do on the Old Testament is disappointing from you. I think I wrote that to you before.
Not intending disrespect but your arguments are never anything close to pedestrian except when you go down this path.
Sorry mate.
June 4, 2007 at 7:14 am
DcFather said,
I’m speaking of course of the Bar Associations and their members who profit immensely from family destruction, and who, without the winner (mother) take all financial and custody bonanza approach, far fewer mothers would wreak such havoc upon their children and husbands, thus eliminating what I would estimate to be roughly 25% of all lawyer income in America.
It is in fact two bribes in one. Not only do the courts raise revenue for the state for each fatherless child they manufacture, they also garner cash for the Bar brethren to which they are loyal above all others, certainly including God, justice, and morality.
But I don’t expect Rinaldo to speak of this part of the bribe, because as an attorney he would be disbarred for speaking of the racketeering and corruption. To me, all but a very small number of lawyers accept a bribe by going along with the Bar Associations, and those who refuse to take the bribe don’t remain lawyers for very long.
June 4, 2007 at 8:22 am
amfortas said,
I said, ‘Moral living and moral laws depend upon reason and morality’. I put this as an opposing arguement to the Appeal to Authority informal fallacy. A quick glance through basic philosophy books will show that morality, moral laws, moral living and reason are quite seperate concepts and the subject of discussion for several thousand years. One such philosophical arguement considers the independance of morality, existent, part of the natural order, that is, it being a discoverable. Personally I think there are still aspects to be explored and discovered as most philosophical discussions do not take in accounts of the Implicate Order. Whether that is a fruitful route, time may tell, but almost any route that enables we rational, thinking experiencing creatures to discover moral ways of living and moral determinations (via consequences, enfolded) are a whole lot better than listening to the views of shepherds and desert wanders who pass the buck to a God that whacks people willy nilly.
A further issue that might have cause confusion is the use of the phrase, ‘moral laws. As with physical laws, these are not ‘proscribed’ and set in place in the Universe by external hand, but are part of the Universe itself, as protons and galaxies are, gravity is and you exist right now and but codified by man - hence, Laws - as they are understood by man through his ability to reason.
Then again, I might be completely wrong. I am a bit of a disappointment sometimes.
Now, back to your first paragraph and question. It completely lost me. I can’t answer - I’d like to, my friend - as I don’t understand the question.
June 4, 2007 at 8:35 am
Denis said,
excellent column. I do hope you can find the time to continue along this theme. This is a topic that many Christians, who go around lecturing father’s and men’s rights advocates, sorely need to read, understand, and hopefully have their eyes opened from. Family Court in America is evil. EVIL. It is a multi-billion dollar industry built on the destruction of men, father’s, and families. The Family Courts in Massachusetts, like all other states, stinks to high heaven. I recommmend a resource for you to read:
EXPOSING THE CORRUPTION IN THE MASSACHUSETTS FAMILY COURTS
by Kevin Thompson
It can be found here:
http://www.lulu.com/content/198514#
The book description at this link:
Description:
I am just one of the thousands of fathers who have been victimized by the system of organized crime in the Massachusetts family courts. This book exposes the motives, tactics, and hypocrisy that all fathers must endure. The book also details my specific case including the “spin off” corruption that resulted from my efforts to hold the racketeers in and outside of this kangaroo court system accountable. The book has been “banned” in Massachusetts for five months now by a judge who is criticized in the book and who banned it without ever “officially” opening it since the book was not submitted into evidence by the moving party. This illegal order, which confirms the claim made in my book that constitutional law does not apply to fathers in family court, has been temporarily lifted. Since the availability of this book could change at any moment, I encourage you to purchase it while you still can.
Readers have posted review Comments at this link that I also recommend people read.
Thanks for taking the time to write this.
June 4, 2007 at 8:50 am
Lloyd selberg said,
Your words ring so true. I have often said that I belive the Family Law Bar abuses more children than all the sexaul preditors combined. The finnest judge I know tried to correct family law problems and ended up retiring after meeting local bar oppositon. He ran the state’s model Probate Division for years. Imagine he wrote the Kansas Simplified Estates Act making it possible to settle uncontested estates without an attorney.
Some how famly law orders have a way of being so lopsided or vague as to insure furter litigation. As we all know, a father has parental rights until proven broke and unable to afford an attorney, merely a corralary to the attroneys creed: “A man is innocent until proven broke.”
The only solution is to refuse attorny assistance and let society self destruct.
June 4, 2007 at 11:10 am
Robert Stevens said,
It is just like I told this child support worker one time. Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, but it was still stealing. It still not O K and I can’t tell you how mad that fellow got. It seems noone had ever informed him that what he and his fellow theives , criminals and terrorist, what they were doing was wrong. They had absolutely no idea, that by any reasonal persons standards, what they were doing was stealing. That it was not Ok.
I do believe these people, once they do face justice, will cry like a little baby when it comes time to pay for they done. they’re not about to ever admit that what they did was wrong. Like a rabid dog , they will simply have to be put down. They will be no reforming them or straigtening them up.
June 4, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Menck said,
Thanks for posting the link to Kevin Thompson’s book. I have been under the cruel thumb of the Massachusetts family court system for over a decade myself (though I reside in another state) and have been aware of the book and the court injunction against it. However, this is the first I have heard that the banning of the book has been lifted, so I will have to get my hands on a copy at some point soon.
June 4, 2007 at 10:17 pm
mruffolo said,
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm
June 4, 2007 at 10:40 pm
mruffolo said,
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0454.htm
June 4, 2007 at 10:42 pm
mruffolo said,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-230.pdf
June 4, 2007 at 10:49 pm
mruffolo said,
families receiving benefits from other government programs) increased by about 23 percent. After adjusting for inflation, total net federal expenditures increased from about $2.2 billion to $2.8 billion. Also, during this period, collections increased by about 12 percent—from about $19 billion to $22 billion, and the program’s cost effectiveness measure (the ratio of collections to total administrative expenditures) increased about 4 percent.
http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d06491high.pdf
June 4, 2007 at 10:54 pm
mruffolo said,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=28&verse=28&version=47&context=verse
When the righteous triumph, there is great glory, but when the wicked rise, people hide themselves.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=28&verse=12&version=47&context=verse
June 4, 2007 at 10:57 pm
DcFather said,
Agreed. My ex-wife is a thief, a child abuser, a domestic violence perp, a pedophile, nearly everything she said in court was perjury, and she admitted using a child in a fraud and perjury scam.
But next to the judge, she is a saint, because judges do the same thing day in and day out, time and again, ruining the lives of thousands and thousands of children, all for money and the Bar Association. It is very easy to spot the worst criminal in every courtroom. He is the one wearing a black dress sitting up front acting all full of himself.
People frequently have a very low opinion of both politicians and lawyers. What is a judge but both in one. Sleaze + sleaze does not equal justice, it just equals double sleaze.
June 4, 2007 at 11:47 pm
DcFather said,
June 5, 2007 at 12:02 am
David R. Usher said,
Rinaldo has written a watershed piece for Christians to read and understand. Much of the Christian faith bought into radical feminism, and this has been killin g marriage for 45 years.
Everyone should be passing this around. Family Research Council, Dr. Dobson, and all other christian leaders should have this article placed front-and-center on their desks (or lecterns) as the case may be.
June 5, 2007 at 8:26 am
Menck said,
June 5, 2007 at 8:52 am
conservativation said,
Menck I owe you some of the comments in those emails. But I do not want to take space here. If you’d like more info you can email me at
Divorce_In_The_Church@yahoo.com and I’ll share these with you.
DCFather, I fear jury trials in our ultra feminised culture when it comes to family law….I actually believe it could be worse. And, if you’ve served on a jury you also know there is a massive logic deficit and emotional surplus in the jury pool. In fact, those I’ve sat with are the people I only see at the DMV and various rural county fairs.
June 5, 2007 at 9:29 am
DcFather said,
Another advantage, unlike judges, juries care whether something is true or not true. Judges today are concerned with money and gender, not truth, justice, or children. Sure, you could get a jury full of feminazis, but that would be no worse than a typical judge.
The keys are that a jury is not beholding to rule based on padding the state coffers or keeping the money rolling in for the Bar Association, the feminazis cannot do a smear campaign on a jury for not ruling the way they demand, and a jury cannot be disbarred for doing right.
June 6, 2007 at 7:14 am
conservativation said,
Codified absolutes designed to protect and eliminate subjectivity…maybe, but I’m still not sure.
On this financial incentive angle, Ive been reading that now for 3 years here and elsewhere, and I’m not sure about it. I do not question the facts as presented at all, and the obvious monetary benefits flowing forth, but I still assign more weight to flawed thinking and flawed perception that has been masterfully (if intentional) created by feminists and male useful idiots over the decades. I just can’t picture the simple thought process in a significant number of judges that goes….”if I nail this guy and every guy it’ll mean more funding for the divorce industry and thats good for me”. I liken this to things for example that Rush Limbaugh says about liberals. He makes observations about what they “want”….pain and misery for the country etc., for their benefit. Its analogous to me to this claim about money and judges. He doesn’t mean it in the simplist and most literal sense, yet the dots do connect and that statement stands the test of reason. I see judges and the financial machine of the state the same way…not as individual judges counting dollors, but as dollars growing a system and sustaining it more and more against change.
June 6, 2007 at 7:41 am
David R. Usher said,
Years ago, I learned that when working the public forum, I came across too hot under the collar, and it appeared I somehow had a problem with women. Someone pointed out that I have to put my arm around people, explaining the problem from a neutral perspective.
I make sure to point out that I do not blame women for what radical feminism has done. Can we blame women for doing things that hurt the futures of women and children, when government says they are legal, entitled activities?
Opposing a political movement that demands rights for women to prostitute themselves in a multitude of entitled ways, at the expense of marriage and the taxpayer, must be opposed.
Any pastor who suggests that opposing radical feminism somehow constitutes “woman hating” is only admitting to being a misogynist in cloth. To teach or condone radical feminist thinking from the pulpit is to bear false witness and to be a false prophet — for which there are many biblical writings and answers thereto.
I once got a minister fired from a congregational church for pushing gay ceremonies against the wishes of the congregation. All I did was to leaflet the parking lot one Sunday, stating why the minister was a false prophet; that the bible says we should avoid church leaders who have gone astray, suggested that church members should stay home to do bible study, and gave them a list of about 35 readings to study at home. It emptied the church, causing the board of deacons to act. They brought in a consultant who surveyed the congregation, reporting a 68% disapproval rating of the minister. That was all the board of deacons needed to see. Three months later, the church had a new minister.
If anyone has a church in their community with a misogynist pastor, perhaps this method should be used to change the situation.
June 6, 2007 at 8:18 am
David R. Usher said,
Where it can be demonstrated that feminists are the the worst protectors of women and children (this includes feminist ministers), we are commanded to act and do something about it.
June 6, 2007 at 8:25 am
David R. Usher said,
June 6, 2007 at 8:32 am
conservativation said,
Almost all agree that there is a problem. Almost all seem to have zero interest in confronting it, and use the above scriptural truths to hide their lack of courage behind. The other dynamic is the one where they can the email and see someone writing about homosexuality and marriage and dismiss me as a whacko militant anti-gay marriage protest flame thrower and answer me back how my hearts condition is wrong and so on. Finally there are those who use “loving the wife as Christ loves the church” to justify never bringing women into the discussion in an accountable way. We’ve seen that here in Will Malvins writing about how, if men would just _______________ (fill in blank) the marriages would all be fine.
The guy I’m meeting today was not raised in the church, and found his way to pastoring (assistant) later in life. He has a dogmatic and practical side, and has even (the horror) written that he sees a distinct lack of relational accountability in the church and sees enough blame across both genders….its a start.
I’m giving him a stack of statistics today, discussing Promise Keepers (the church is announcing a new conference and pushin men to attend), DivorceCare workshop, and the desparity between both the number and content of the women’s and men’s ministries. There is a new one for men making its way across the country…its called “The Quest”, and pitches itself for manly men, complete with the pics of motorcycles and men chopping wood. Geez I get sick of that, because the content of the seminar was sent to me by email, and as usual it admonished the rough gender as inadequate.
I differ from you a little…maybe…in that yes I see the radical feminists as the cuase, but I see the majority of women complicit…enjoying (they think) the fruits of the sistas work. Maybe I coined a term…I call it evangelical feminism what is present in conservative churches, and it is insidious ability to hide behind scripture and use twisted if then logic to run their homes and their churches. I like the following joke I keep cut and pasted from an article I read awhile back….
HERE IT IS
a man and a woman explain the secret to a happy marriage. The wife, feigning subservience, says: “My husband makes all the big decisions, and I make the small ones.” The amiable schlemiel of a husband then adds (ba da boom), “Yes, I decide whether God exists and where the universe ends, while my wife decides where we live, who our friends are, and what schools our children attend?”.
Get it? Fathers — the butt of the joke — think they are important because their minds are filled with stupid abstract notions like the Meaning of Life, but in fact they are irrelevant to their loved ones’ happiness, which depends on practical domestic choices that women are more competent to make.
END
I will share that with the pastor today. The other thing I will share is the book “Why Men Hate Going to Church” by David Murrow, and the quote he uses from a woman…she says, “men sit on boards and women run the church” That was said in the 50’s, now men don’t even sit on the boards anymore.
Finally, I wish my pet peeve had more traction. Like you said, leafleting a church brought change. I keep working this as best I can but would like to see at least that more men recognize this small corner of the MRM and felt it was actionable. I get the glazed look from the uninitiated.
Maybe I’ll write a small paragraph about my lunch later…thanks for the response.
June 6, 2007 at 9:36 am
amfortas said,
I know, I know!
June 6, 2007 at 9:48 am
conservativation said,
June 6, 2007 at 10:01 am
Lloyd selberg said,
It’s not necessarily the judges that are the problem. How may judges handling family law cases end up alcoholics? I can think of one Wichita family law judge publicly disgraced by being arrested for DWI while returning from a family law meeting in Topeka, KS. He was openly a father’s rights advocate in the early 90’s. Judges that care don’t last long.
I know too many judges and attorneys that support our cause. It’s the internal family law bar politics and attorneys that will silence or remove a judge that does not promote their financial interest. Attorneys are taught they are smarter than the pubic and must impose their superior wisdom on the rest of society.
The concepts of male honor that ruled the early bar have all but disappeared with the influx of female attorneys and judges. Consider judicial appointments to represent the indigent. Fifty years ago, it was part of the job of attorneys to accept pro bono judicial assignments. Today an attorney must be paid when court appointed.
The male honor code (of Marines, etc.) is completely foreign to the female way of thinking. Civilization is the evolutionary product of honorable men, and the current self-centered matriarchy has all but suppressed this honor code.
A general scriptural message is: “Service to others is service to God.” The family law bar has lost its spiritual direction to help anyone other than the attorneys it benefits.
As Fred Reed so aptly stated: “Lawyers lounge under the lampposts of jurisprudence, in the moral equivalent of plastic miniskirts and fishnet stockings, breathing, “Oh, ba-a-a-aybee, I’ll do anything for $250 an hour.”
June 6, 2007 at 11:32 am
thurston861 said,
Tumey v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927)
June 6, 2007 at 12:08 pm
thurston861 said,
Yep, turns out that every single one of their causes for Women was a Lie and supported by lies and falsity.
Now Feminists are upset about the way Women dress and command Women to get in LockStep with them.
So who are the controllers and liars. Who is really benefitting with Women being depressed in epidemic porportions?
Looks like materialism and over sexuality is not the Road to Happiness that the Feminists were alled by the Suffragettes to sell without substantial Female opposition.
Must not have wanted to split that majority vote they won for women.
What shallow logic.
Yes Cons, since everything is politicized, even Women’s silence and whimiscal vote for the girl is complicity.
Biblical Women would hand their husbands their Blank and Signed Absentee Ballots.
June 6, 2007 at 1:24 pm
conservativation said,
The pastor listened as I methodically deconstructed his predictable closely held beliefs on who files divorces, why they file, how church is feminized, and how society as a whole and the church indeed are if not conciously, at least indirectly enabling all this.
He had the standard objections and beliefs, which I had counter statistics and evidence to the contrary. Him starting froma strong marriage accountability standpoint AND him having counciled couples on the brink of divorce did serve to open his eyes a tiny bit.
He commited to setting a meeting with him, me and the pastor now in charge of all the men’s ministry matters. It did get his attention when I pointed out (what we know instinctively) that Mothers Day was momma worship and Fathers Day was daddy bashing….he chuckled nervously.
He was noncommital, but I think he left a little changed…and he bought me a friggin Italian salad for Pete’s sake.
June 6, 2007 at 1:47 pm
thurston861 said,
He will probably never be the same. One day he will wake up and realize the chains on his mind.
I wonder if the facts will overcome their ingrained prejudice?
June 6, 2007 at 2:16 pm
conservativation said,
June 6, 2007 at 2:29 pm
thurston861 said,
When his wife Liberates him from his material possessions he will join.
June 6, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Menck said,
David Usher, your points are appreciated and warrant serious thought.
thurston, sometimes you distill things down into perfect clarity and brevity such as in your comment #38. Excellent.
Rinaldo has surely put together some of the most cogent and important ideas I’ve yet seen in my short time visiting MND.
June 6, 2007 at 3:29 pm
thurston861 said,
I did not write that.
Tyler Durden must have hacked my account.
“The Great Liberator blew u my material posesions and altered my consceiousness.” - Tyler Durden, Fight Club
June 6, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Scott Strohm said,
From an early age, I have avoided most things connected to institutional churches, because I observed so much hypocrisy and corruption. The Word(s) used so freely by elders not worthy of respect, not connected to values or reality.
Still, I appreciate this article from you.
DcFather,
Re #18:
Spot on.
Lloyd selberg,
Re #31:
Why dismiss the accountability of the black robes so easily?
They choose to do what they do. Over and over again, they choose. Regardless whether they feel compelled to please their wives or their sense of accomplishment (measured in wealth taken by further emptying the porridge bowls of children). Regardless of what or whom might pressure them. They have sworn an oath to uphold (in the case of the U.S.A.) the U.S. Constitution. They are traitors. They and their families deserve what traitors deserve.
Lax (faux) Lawyer Boards of Discipline are also to blame. They are in a position to make the necessary corrections but they don’t.
And, there is value in assigning blame. I have met many who counseled me forget about blame while they lied and perjured and enabled those who told egregious lies against me. All my honesty and unwillingness to engage in the slippery use of words may be a benefit to me some day, but in the here and now it brings oppression and seriously detracts from the pleasure of raising my children.
conservativation,
Thanks for your action! And, for describing it here. It is refreshing to hear of action to cause change.
Thurston,
Are you in Ohio?
June 11, 2007 at 3:42 pm