A good post from Ed West here at The Telegraph
"...Yesterday everyone’s favourite real-life Prince Joffrey, George Osborne, reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to financially disincentivising one-income, two-parent families. The Government has decided that, in the greater scheme of things, they’d rather subsidise families with two working parents than one where a mother (or father) stays at home to look after the children. In comparison to the hysterics over welfare reform, this has not attracted that much comment.Taking aside the costs, the issue of discrimination, or whether the state should even be trying to nudge people in any way, doesn’t the evidence (so far) lean towards the idea that children raised by a non-working mother do better on average than those where both parents go to work? (That’s a half-rhetorical, half-genuine question, as I’d be keen to see more evidence – but I believe most of it points that way.) So why is no one looking at this issue from an evidence-based view, considering that the aim of policy is to improve the outcomes of children?The answer is presumably because it’s something that lots of people don’t want to hear. Women who work tend to be more influential and powerful than those who don’t, and when it comes down to it most successful cultural ideas, whether of the Left or Right, are those that suit the rich and powerful.There’s also a mistaken idea that pointing to the evidence is offensive, especially to the many people who don’t fit the pattern (and there will be many). For years there has been a body of evidence that children raised out of wedlock do worse than those raised by married couples, even unhappy, struggling ones, but nothing has been done about it. As Charles Murray wrote: “All of these statements apply after controlling for the family’s economic status. I know of no other set of important findings that are as broadly accepted by social scientists who follow the technical literature, liberal as well as conservative, and yet are so resolutely ignored by network news programs, editorial writers for the major newspapers, and politicians of both major political parties.”But Murray’s findings are offensive, and therefore untrue. Likewise when the Bishop of Exeter says “There’s a lot of research which shows getting parenting right in those early years has a positive impact on health, on education and on social behaviour.” Well, he’s a bishop, and churchmen don’t get listened to except when they say something insane..."And, on a related theme, more evidence, as we have been expecting since his election, that Pope Francis is not the liberals' (Roman 'progressives' ' or Anglican revisionists') dream come true. Speaking this morning at the Wednesday audience, this is part of what he said:
"...Unfortunately, there have often been attempts to obscure faith in the Resurrection of Jesus, and doubts have crept in even among believers themselves. A watered down faith, as we would say, not a strong faith. This is because of superficiality, sometimes because of indifference, occupied by a thousand things considered more important than the faith, or because of a purely horizontal vision of life. But it is the Resurrection that gives us the greatest hope, because it opens our lives and the life of the world to the eternal future of God, to full happiness, to the certainty that evil, sin, death can be defeated. And this leads us to live everyday realities with more confidence, to face them with courage and commitment. The Resurrection of Christ shines a new light on these daily realities. The Resurrection of Christ is our strength!..."
"...Another element. In the professions of faith of the New Testament, only men are remembered as witnesses of the Resurrection, the Apostles, but not the women. This is because, according to the Jewish Law of the time, women and children were not considered reliable, credible witnesses. In the Gospels, however, women have a primary, fundamental role. Here we can see an argument in favour of the historicity of the Resurrection: if it were a invented, in the context of that time it would not have been linked to the testimony of women. Instead, the evangelists simply narrate what happened: the women were the first witnesses. This tells us that God does not choose according to human criteria: the first witnesses of the birth of Jesus are the shepherds, simple and humble people, the first witnesses of the Resurrection are women. This is beautiful, and this is the mission of women, of mothers and women, to give witness to their children and grandchildren that Christ is Risen! Mothers go forward with this witness! What matters to God is our heart, if we are open to Him, if we are like trusting children. But this also leads us to reflect on how in the Church and in the journey of faith, women have had and still have a special role in opening doors to the Lord, in following him and communicating his face, because the eyes of faith always need the simple and profound look of love. The Apostles and disciples find it harder to believe in the Risen Christ, not the women however! Peter runs to the tomb, but stops before the empty tomb; Thomas has to touch the wounds of the body of Jesus with his hands. In our journey of faith it is important to know and feel that God loves us, do not be afraid to love: faith is professed with the mouth and heart, with the word and love..."[The full text is here]So the liberal media's honeymoon with the new Holy Father will be a short one. Deo Gratias!