lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Why America’s Child Support Laws Violate Basic Biblical Principle: Part 2: Taking a Man’s Millstone

2007-06-10
By

WHY AMERICA’S CHILD SUPPORT LAWS VIOLATE BASIC BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES

By Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.

413-445-6789

To contact Mr. Del Gallo by e-mail, go to the BerkshireFatherhood.com website (active link below) and use the contact function.

Berkshirefatherhood.com

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Last week, I started a series of articles on what I hope to be an exposition on how current child support laws (and divorce laws), violate basic biblical principles. This is not to say that child support in the abstract is or is not unbiblical. Rather, it discusses child support as it actually is in the United States. Last week, I spoke about how the bible forbids bribery, and yet that is what is happening to our family courts. Literally, the federal government pays greater money to states that award more in child support

This week, I aim to write about another unbiblical practice, taking away one’s ability to earn a living and put on food on the table. Its an odd biblical principle in that not only is a rule that God wants us to live by, but a mafia loan shark lives by this principle—nobody with half a brain would want to destroy the ability of an individual to pay his dept. You can’t imagine a gangster giving out the order, “Go break Johnny’s hands and make sure he never drives again, because I don’t want him to be able to pay us back.”

Here are the relevant biblical principles.

“Do not take a pair of millstones—not even the upper one—as security for a debt, because that would be taking a man’s livelihood as security.” Deuteronomy 24:6.

“1 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees, 2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.

What will you do on the day of reckoning,
when disaster comes from afar?
To whom will you run for help?
Where will you leave your riches?”

We will be focusing on Deuteronomy 24:6.

THE LAW: Under the laws in many states, including Massachusetts, the very means to earn a living can be taken away. In Massachusetts, drivers licenses may be taken away due to a failure to pay child support—unlike actual drunk drivers, those in arrears for child support cannot apply for hardship licenses. Also, in Massachusetts and many states, professional licenses may be suspended or revoked.

One pro-child support website put it thusly, “The law does not care if a non-custodial is unemployed, filing for bankruptcy, or even homeless, child support must be paid and will be enforced. Did you know that child support enforcement agencies in most states can suspend the driver’s license? Not only can they suspend the drivers’ license, but also any professional, occupational, or recreational license.” Remember, these are not the words of people that oppose oppressive child support. This does not come from a father’s rights website. These are people that advocate for child support and find nothing wrong asking for child support no matter what the non-custodial parent’s, almost always the father’s, financial condition. They actually see nothing wrong hounding a man for payments that is unemployed or homeless. They also see nothing wrong with taking away a man’s ability to earn a living—or even basically function.

ANALYSIS: IT IS UNBIBLICAL TO TAKE AWAY THE MEANS TO EARN A LIVING IN ORDER TO PAY A DEBT

It has been put in other ways, with the upper millstone being called the handmill: “”No one shall take a handmill or an upper millstone in pledge, for he would be taking a life in pledge

While the Bible speaks of taking millstones with respect to taking security for a debt, no doubt these principles equally apply to satisfaction of a debt. It is unbiblical to take away the very means of another to support himself. In fact, it is abomination in the eyes of God. According to the Geneva Bible Study, this passage of the Bible (proscribing the taking of millstones) means do not take away any thing by which a man makes a living. Wesley’s notes, states that millstones were used in their hands, and mill grain. “Under this, he understands all other things necessary to get a livelihood, the taking away whereof is against the laws both of charity and prudence, seeing by those things alone he can be enabled both to subsist and to pay his debts. Life – His livelihood, the necessary support of his life.”

Matthew Henry’s Comments also adds to the meaning of this verse: “Some orders are given about pledges for money lent. This teaches us to consult the comfort and subsistence of others, as much as our own advantage. Let the poor debtor sleep in his own raiment, and praise God for thy kindness to him. Poor debtors ought to feel more than commonly they do, the goodness of creditors who do not take all the advantage of the law against them, nor should this ever be looked upon as weakness.”

David Guzik’s commentaries on the Bible read as follows:

“Do not take someone’s livelihood as a pledge.

“a. A millstone was something essential to a family’s livelihood, therefore it was forbidden to take it as a guarantee for a loan.

“b. Although interest could not be charged on a loan to an Israelite in need, a pledge could be taken – collateral to guarantee the repayment of the loan. This command forbids the taking of collateral that would take away a man’s ability to provide for his family, and get himself out of debt.

“c. This warns Israel against taking advantage of each other in times of great need. We must take care that we never unfairly profit from the poverty or difficulty of others.”

Glenn Sacks and Jeffrey Leving, two who often write about father’s issues, had the following to say about those that have their driver’s licenses taken away:

“Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earn poverty level wages; less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year. According to the largest federally-funded study of divorced dads ever conducted, unemployment is the largest cause of failure to pay child support.

“The inflated arrearages are created in large part because the child support system is mulishly impervious to the economic realities working people face, such as layoffs, wage cuts, unemployment, and work-related injuries. According to the Urban Institute, less than one in 20 non-custodial parents who suffers a substantial drop in income is able to get courts to reduce his or her child support payments. In such cases, the amounts owed mount quickly, as do interest and penalties. . . .

“The situation is further complicated by the fact that child support enforcement agencies are notorious for their errors and bureaucratic bungling. Audits and evaluations have shown that such errors often comprise a significant portion of arrearages.The ‘Most Wanted Deadbeat Parents’ lists put out by many states illustrate this problem. Far from being lists of well-heeled businessmen, lawyers, and accountants, the vast majority of the men on these lists do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which they could never hope to pay off. Even a person with a college degree is a rare find on these lists.”

(Pictured Above: Chinese Using Millstone to Make Flour)

One website states, responding to Glenn Sacks, “However, they ignore that many parents below the poverty line have the money to pay support but spend it instead on different priorities. Time and again, funds that should go to child support are spent instead on $ 60 hairstylist bills, $ 90 premium cable TV bills, $ 100 in new clothes, $ 300 for a New Year’s Eve bash, $ 1,000 for a weekend trip to Las Vegas, a new car, etc. by the ‘poor.’” How many people do you know in your own personal life that are spending $300 on New Years Eve, or paying $60 for a hairstylist, or $90 for premium cable that below the poverty line?

In reality, many men simply cannot pay their child support because of their own financial limits. They are dead broke, not deadbeat. Taking away their drivers license and professional license exacts a great cruelty. No other person has such an extraordinary means to enforce a debt—not even the estate of a murder victim.

Those that have enacted these laws understand little about the bible. If they claim to be religious, they are just going through the motions by attending services. Not taking the millstone of a debtor for debt is part of a more generalized biblical principle, one of the two great principles advanced by Jesus Christ, “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Mathew 22:39.

Those that advocate the taking away of driver’s licenses and professional licenses have a right to their opinion. But they only have right to their own opinions, not facts. The Bible is clear that taking the means of someone to provide for themselves and to stay alive is immoral. Driver’s licenses are of course not only needed to get to work, but to go the stores, by basic provisions, go to church, visit relatives, and transport aging or disabled relatives. It is also a means of choking one off from one’s social companions merely to pay a debt.

Habakkuk was a minor Hebrew Prophet. In the book of Habakkuk 2, verse 7, it is written, “Will not your debtors suddenly arise? Will they not wake up and make you tremble? Then you will become their victim.” As it says in the book of Isaiah, “Woe to those who make unjust laws.” Those that have had anything to do with enacting or enforcing these laws that deprive men of their ability to sustain themselves have sinned grievously, if you accept the Bible as a source of moral authority.

1,931 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • GrandGizmo

    Man, I totally loved reading this article. The reason is that my mother has been paying my child support for the past three years. It’s because I can’t pay it. And, even though my mother has been paying it, they want me to agree to more child support before I can get my license back. My Mom and I have been sending in payments for three years or more now. That’s not all either. I’m schizophrenic, and I take an Invega Sustenna shot once a month to prevent psychotic episodes. Basically, they want me to pay my child support even though I make no income, can’t find a job and am being treated for a mental disorder. Now, does that sound fair? I don’t know what to do. I’m totally at an end as to what I should do. If anyone has any suggestions, please let me know.

  • Pingback: General Law Blog » Do the Massachusetts Child Support Laws Violate Christian Values?

  • http://www.mensdefense.org Lloyd Selberg

    Opps: That shoud have read ’96 (not ’94) presidental election.

  • http://www.mensdefense.org Lloyd Selberg

    I find it refreshing to see the effect of Rinaldo’s approach to discussing the unpleasant subject of child support enforcement with a twist of religion. No one has felt compelled to attack with egotistic rage that some posts evoke. Even the responses to SunRose were civilized and that is progress.

    The last judge I questioned about the federally mandated jailing of those more than $5000 delinquent in child support responded that MO judges were unsure of how to handle such situations. It so happened that the “dead beat” parent in the instant case was a woman admittedly $4,600 delinquent and without a job. Obviously that confused the good judge.

    Clearly support enforcement law is a political issue based in evoking a public emotional rather than rational response. When the most powerful person in the world, the US president, orders his subordinate, Deputy Director of Child Support Enforcement, Judge Ross to “cook the books” on child support collections for political purposes prior to the ’94 election, insanity is sure to follow.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    DCFather is talking about people walking a mile in our moccasins. I created a way a person can do that:

    http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/moccasin.htm

    Unfortunately, the very definition of bigotry is the absolute refusal to even consider a situation from the hated person’s point of view.

  • http://BerkshireFatherhoodCoalition.com Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

    First, I want to thank everyone for some top rate responses. But I want to repeat some sentences at the begining of the article, “This is not to say that child support in the abstract is or is not unbiblical. Rather, it discusses child support as it actually is in the United States.
    Some people have put it kindly of “sunrose’s” non-linear thinking. She hardly talks about the central premise of the article–taking man’s ability to support himself and perform basic social functions. I know fathers who have had to cancel vacations with their children because they no longer had a valid drivers license–was that in the child’s best interest?
    As one of you noticed, did you see the knee-jerk discussion on domestic violence which wasn’t even remotely related to my article? Did you see the assertion that child support was a form of domestic violence?
    Sunrose engages in a wholesale attack on why child support is ok, rather than why it is ok in its present form.
    DC Father, Loyd, and Conservation wrote great responses–great essays in their own part.

  • Menck

    cons, took a peek at that link. My favorite titles in their articles section were, “Jesus Was a Feminist” and “Sonship for Women”. The former penned by a man and the latter by a woman.

    Need I say more?

  • conservativation

    I just followed the link…Godswordtowomen.com that sunrose shared in her post. I didn’t think I could be shocked any more then I already have been in the ways scripture can be twisted. This stuff gets to within a millimeter of the Divine Feminine if you stand away and look at it on the macro.

    Every man here who is a Christian needs to follow that link and click trough that site and see how some of the churches are so completely screwed up as to be beyond help.

  • conservativation

    Sunrose has just singlehandedly demonstrated the nonlinear thought process we come against in near all gender debates. As stated she created straw men left and right, and utterly misunderstood the pricing quotes used in the article. Sunrose…read it again slowly…these were not alleged to have been spent by the mother or CP, but by the NCP. Then you go into a diatribe about why the CP may have spent these amounts? You completely lost all credibility then and there, proving and affirming as I read your post that you exude nothing but emotion and impulse.

    Why can women not escape the all or nothing fallacy? Why can there not be real support avoiders who have the money…that would be bad…AND at the same time real men who are hurting and being unjustly hurt by the system? Your kneejerk reference to how men must care for their kids is sophmoric and predictable. Its what all women scream at the mere mention of support payments.

    The deviation into DV is also predictable. Who brought that up? Why is it relevant? You are obviously an evangelical feminist with your apologetic references to mans role in the home and the link you provide. I’m sick and tired of being told what submission DOESNT mean….I’m ready to be told what it DOES mean, in a Biblical and straightforward way. Realize dear that none of it is conditional…but you wouldn’t be roaring if you weren’t woman would you?

    You are insignificant in your ramblings if your diseased thought process wasn’t so prevalent today. You actually write some of what passes for legal discourse…and that friends is terrifying.

    We should keep her post and use it as a reference tool.

  • http://www.mensdefense.org Lloyd Selberg

    “The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take the people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.” – Ezra Taft Benson

    “No other success can compensate for failure in the home. The poorest shack in which love prevails over a united family is of greater value to God and future humanity than any other riches. In such a home God can work miracles and will work miracles.” – David O. McKay

  • DcFather

    A very simple way to enlighten those who believe in the anti-father policies dictated by government such as “sunrose” is to take their children from them, have some lawyer/politician dressed in a robe dictate that it would be “in the best interests of the child” to be raised by somebody else and mandate an amount that she/they must pay on a regular basis in order to stay out of prison (or even keep a driver’s license).

    Perhaps the other person is the father, perhaps it is another woman down the street who claims to take better care of children. It does not matter.

    “But I have rights”, says the CP ilk such as sunrose, you can’t do that! To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But I did nothing wrong”. To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But I have been depressed and unable to work as the result of having my children taken from me.” To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But I lost my job and driver’s license, and therefore I cannot pay”. To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But if I pay what the judge says, I won’t have enough left to live on”. To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But I’m a better parent than the father and the woman down the street”. To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But I have not been allowed to visit my children, why should I pay for them if I can’t even visit them.” To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But the children are being abused and molested in their new home. That is very very wrong.” To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But what they have done to me and my children is illegal, it is basic accepted Constitutional law that they cannot do such things to a parent.” To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But the people now raising my children have lots of money, and I cannot pay my own way with what I earn if I give them half.” To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But the people now raising my children don’t even spend the money I give them on the children, they buy breast implants, take lavish vacations, drink champagne, and dump the children in daycare or with a babysitter.” To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But what they are doing is immoral, it defies basic principles of Christianity and most or all major religions.” To which I respond, “you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay”.

    “But they have taken my driver’s license, and now I cannot get to work without breaking the law and getting thrown in jail.”

    To which I respond, “But, but, but, all you have is excuses. If you were a decent parent, you would find a way to pay, whether you miss your children or not, whether you are a better parent or not, whether it is illegal and immoral or not, and whether the parent the judge said was better for the children was filthy rich or not. You Ma’am, are a deadbeat, the scum of society. You are to be publicly disparaged and humiliated, thrown in prison, and may never see your children again. Those who persecute you are heroes, for they are the ones concerned with your children, not you. In fact, you just don’t care about your children, for if you did you would pay.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    I had to respond to the whining of the custodial parent. But on point, as to the license suspension, we had the Seattle Times editorial page actually make the same argument as Rinaldo, without the Biblical quotations.

    The Seattle Times responded to the decision in Amunrud v. Board of Appeals, (2006) 158 Wash. 2d. 208, 143 P. 3d. 571 that the US Supreme Court refused to hear on certiorari. Three justices of the Supreme Court of Washington dissented, 158 Wash. 2d. 231-246. Here are some excerpts of their dissent for the benefit of those litigating these issues in other states. If you can get a state supreme court to rule the same way as these three dissenters, we will end this evil license suspension system in that state and present the US Supremes with a split between state supreme courts.

    Justice Sanders wrote, Id. 235-236:
    Professional and motor vehicle licenses create both property and liberty interests requiring due process protection. Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 99 S. Ct. 2642, 61 L. Ed. 2d 365 (1979); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S. Ct. 1586, 29 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1971).
    And at Id. 241-242:
    Professional license revocation also requires a rational relationship between the revocation of the license and the applicant’s fitness or capacity to conduct that particular profession. For example, in Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 77 S. Ct. 752, 1 L. Ed. 2d 796 (1957) the board of bar examiners refused to permit the petitioner to take the bar examination on the ground that he had not shown “good moral character” because of his previous membership in the Communist Party. The Supreme Court held: “A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar, but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant’s fitness or capacity to practice law.” Id. at 239. See also In re Revocation of License to Practice Dentistry of Flynn, 52 Wn.2d 589, 594, 328 P.2d 150 (1958) (holding that there must be a rational connection between the acts giving rise to the license revocation and Flynn’s fitness and capacity to practice dentistry to constitute a valid reason for the revocation).

    Some more publicity support can go long way, if we had twomore justices in Amunrud, I would have my license back and would be suing the State of Wshington for wrongfully taking it from me.

    Threre 49 other state supreme courts, so please keep pluggin away with these arguments.

    My arguments along these lines are posted at

    http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com/586476.htm

  • mruffolo

    In America the marriage rate is the low. Divorce rate high. Courts hostile toward men – lose kids, 18 years of income, property, liberties, and career.

    To the unmarried I say that it is good for them to remain single. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry a traditional woman like Suuth American or Asian.

    By marring a foreign woman, the man can easily apply for citizenship to her country of origin (read: new D.L., away from the long arm of feminized laws, divorce bi-lateral and uncommon, focus on family).

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    sunrose, if you are the petitioner in your divorce, and you refused to allow the father of your children EQUAL PARENTING and were upheld by a typically corrupt family court judge, THEN YOU HAVE NO COMPLAINTS WHATSOEVER.

    Part of your responsiblities as a parent is CO-OPERATION with the other parent in making the marriage work and raising the children. This does not include enlisting the aid of unAmerican tyrants to punish the other parent for whatever wrongs, real or imagined, he may have committed.

    If you have not got that through your thick skull then you are an unfit parent and should go f— yourself. That way you avoid bringing more children into the world.

    As peonage is a crime, 18 U.S.C. §1581 prehaps you should leave your ex alone lest a federal grand jury somewhere decides to “run away” and commence enforcing the Peonage Law.

  • http://BerkshireFatherhoodCoalition.com Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

    Some very quick points:
    1. The unemployment rate may be low (many are considered “employed” but their unemployment ran out), but many have low paying jobs.
    2. Divorces are often self-selecting for financial disaster. Typically a guy loses his job and has other economic hardships, and the wife leaves him. The court’s ridiculous response is to act as if the loss in financial statutus never occurred, when it was in fact the cause of the breakup of the marriage.
    3. A very interesting comment, “One aspect of domestic violence is financial abuse.” It truly is the case that domestic nor violent to be considered domestic violence.
    4. The author quotes, “1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” When the Bible says to provide for you children, it clearly means to take them into your own house and raise them. There is simply too much in the bible that is anti-divorce for it to have any other meaning. Moreover, there is a sort of disconnect–these articles started with an initial premise that child support in the O.K. The comment is a typical pyromaniac in a field of strawmen.
    5. I noticed the author also–amazingly–writes, “No where in the Bible does it say husband gets to beat wife.” Nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to be Red Sox fan, and I clearly said neither.
    6. Another logical fallacy: “As for taking driver’s licenses, this became necessary when other enforcement measures failed.” First, it is odd that you write but one sentence since the inappropriateness of taking drivers licenses and professioanl licenses is the entire thesis of this article. But isn’t the reason that the the other enforcement mechanism failed–namely garnishing of wages–because there were no wages to garnish?
    7. I was lost in the author’s abbreviations. I assumed when she was talking about the hardships the author endured, it was the noncustodial parent. (The CP [custodial parent] and NCP [non-custodial parent] abbreviation is a bad idea. We over abbreviate in society, and it takes a while to figure what the person really meant.
    8. Assuming it is ethical to take a child from a loving and fit father and make him pay the other parent to raise the child (really a product of the 20th century only), the only purpose of child support is to pay for 50% of the incremental cost of having a child. If you never had a child, you would still buy a home (which you will one day own completely), pay for oil, buy a car, have a telephone etc. . . . Nor is the role of government to enforce the payment of the non-necessaries of life.
    9. In almost all cases, child support far exceeds the incremental cost of having a child, let alone half of the incremental cost. Most women who remarry enjoy a higher standard of living.

  • sunrose

    I’m curious about some of the allegations in this article. For instance,

    “Time and again, funds that should go to child support are spent instead on $ 60 hairstylist bills, $ 90 premium cable TV bills, $ 100 in new clothes, $ 300 for a New Year’s Eve bash, $ 1,000 for a weekend trip to Las Vegas, a new car, etc. by the ‘poor.’” How many people do you know in your own personal life that are spending $300 on New Years Eve, or paying $60 for a hairstylist, or $90 for premium cable that below the poverty line?”

    How often does this really happen? What do haircuts cost for NCPs? How much does their cable cost? What do they spend on new clothes? (And was that $100 for children’s school clothes or actually for the CP? Is this money coming out of arrearage payments? Arrearage payments are back support payments. That support obligation was covered by the CP when the NCP didn’t pay. That support, had it been paid when it was due, would have covered the bills that the CP covered out of her earnings, some of which are supposed to be for her, just as NCPs claim that they need money for themselves as well.

    And, come to think of it, how does the NCP get this accounting and where is the accounting for NCPs’ expenses? Is $60 for a haircut necessary because the CP may have an office, management, or admin position which requires “FOA”? Was some bill covered out of earnings and this money taken from arrears or child support which might have been late? Was the $1,000 to Las Vegas some possible school-related function where some sports event was held there, a job or school interview? What, precisely were the circumstances? How come we never hear about deadbeat NCPs who own expensive cars, live in expensive houses, date, spend money on unnecessary and expensive things while their ex-families struggle in some dilapidated part of town?

    As a CP for 13 years, I’ve talked to and known a lot of other CPs – who were working. They cut their own hair – and their children’s hair. They might throw a birthday party for a child, but they usually forego any presents for themselves on their own birthdays. In fact, I know of many cases where there were no parties at all. The CP’s money all went for rent, food, medical, etc. And the vacation claim is very interesting, given that most CPs I’ve talked to use their vacation and sick days to take care of sick children, doctor’s appointments, school meetings, and end up going to work sick because they have no sick days left for themselves. These same CPs rarely, if ever, go out socially. There’s no money for babysitters, clothes, or the actual activity, much less take vacations. I’ve known many CPs who wash clothes out in sinks and tubs because they don’t have washing machines or money or cars to go to laundromats. Many if not most CPs forego medical, food and other nessities to make sure their children have what they need.

    As for the claim that most NCPs are in poverty and less than 4% who owe child support earn over $40,000, how is that possible with a national unemployment rate of 4.5% and a so-called booming economy? How is it NCPs with arrearages owing can afford to go date and start another family or move from state to state? How is it many NCPs quit good-paying jobs at time of divorce and can only seem to find low-paying jobs after the child support order is issued? Are NCPs hiding income by working under the table or being paid part in check and part in cash?

    Last year, almost $106 billion in child support went unpaid – most of that was arrearage. That, of course, is the cumulative total. $29.92 billion was due in 2006, but just under $18.06 billion in current support was paid. $7.08 billion was collected in back support – arrears.

    As for taking driver’s licenses, this became necessary when other enforcement measures failed. Many CPs find other ways to work because they can’t afford cars or repairs when the ones they owe break down, so they piecemeal travel expenses to get to work.

    Here’s something the good pastor didn’t include in his article:

    1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

    Ephesians 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

    See this link and examine items 4 and 5 under Creation: http://www.gal328.org/articles/CBE-Statement.html

    As the head of the family, fathers are to provide for and protect the family. They are to set Christian examples, be loving, kind, merciful. “Head” does not mean dictator or exhibiting arbitrary selfishness. See this link: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/word%20study/head.htm

    No where in the Bible does it say husband gets to beat wife. Husbands are instructed at great length on how to treat their wives. They break the marriage covenant when they do not uphold their end of the deal. Implicit in these instructions is the idea that men do not abuse their wives and men are responsible for the condition of the family. So if you are calling on Biblical precepts, you must also chastise those men who do not provide for or protect their families.

    One aspect of domestic violence is financial abuse. Withholding child support subjects the ex-family to possible outside abuses (living in dangerous neighborhoods, poorly kept living quarters, lack of food, medical, etc.)

    And Christians are supposed to obey the laws of the land. Therefore, if this article is supposed to be justification for not paying child support, then it is not in line with that understanding of obedience.

    “Those that have had anything to do with enacting or enforcing these laws that deprive men of their ability to sustain themselves have sinned grievously, if you accept the Bible as a source of moral authority.” The simple solution then, is for men (most NCPs are men) to pay full child support on time. Then the issue of rescinding driver’s licenses is moot. With all due respect, it is equally true that men who don’t obey the laws and who “deprive [women] of their ability to sustain themselves [and their children] have sinned grievously, if [they] accept the bible as a source of moral authority”.

  • http://www.mensdefense.org Lloyd selberg

    Rinaldo:

    Another excellent well argued article for those that accept Christian religious principles.

    Unfortunately, the very problems that you address would not exist if the political majority followed Christian principles. I suggest that men’s/fathers movement would be totally irrelevant in a righteous Christian society. It is the very loss of moral character of politicians and legal profession that have created our dilemma.

    “Is feminism a cure for which there is no disease, or a disease for which there is no cure?” – Richard F. Doyle







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise