Connect with us

Culture and Religion

When a liberal psychoanalyst admits that mothers must bond with their babies

Published

on

How I love it when level-headed liberals get the cold shoulder from other liberals or even progressives for something that is has been proven right but does fit the left-leaning narrative.

Erica Komisar is your typical New York liberal, but her recent book which was published early this year has been a thorn on the side of women who still want their cake and eat it too.  The book is titled; Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters.

The bottom line is that Komisar is telling women that they need to put their personal interests aside and take care of their newborns in those early three years of life.  Because of that evidence even coming from someone with liberal leanings, the typical left-leaning mainstream media including NPR want nothing to do with her.  Well, ABC’s breakfast news show Good Morning America was willing to have her on the show.  The person that interviewed her however said; “I don’t believe in the premise of your book at all. I don’t like your book.”

Well, a lot of leftists don’t like the book at all.  Just does not fit the premise of women being free and independent and wanting it all.  Telling women that they need to be home with their children only will hurt their emotions.  It puts them under the thumb of their husbands who just wants to push them around like a Stepford Wife.  After all, she may have more children and that means…oh she must depend on the husband alone for all those comforts, and she may have to be a homemaker. YIKES!

Komisar also points out how putting children in daycare does not help the cause, for the child is in the care of a stranger and eventually is making the child emotionally disturbed.  She does support a maternity-leave policy which America has yet to adopt and is opposed by most conservatives for fiscal reasons.  It is not all that bad for Komisar.  Her conclusions has gotten her booked on Fox & Friends and Christian Talk radio stations.

As much as the left talks about science, they just don’t like it when the science does fit the progressive narrative.  It is not about science, it is about attacking God and the marriage institution that he himself put into place.

Further reading

The Politicization of Motherhood – WSJ

https://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-politicization-of-motherhood-1509144044-lMyQjAxMTI3NjA2MjIwMTIxWj/Motherhood used to be as American as apple pie. Ms. Komisar, 53, is a Jewish psychoanalyst who lives and practices on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. I don’t like your book.” The premise of Ms. Komisar’s book—backed by research in psychology, neuroscience and epigenetics—is that “mothers are biologically necessary for babies,” and not only for the obvious reasons of pregnancy and birth.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance?

Published

on

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance

To really answers the question of whether life was created or came about by random chance, we need to take a mathematical look at things. It may be easier to form our opinions based on something we read in a junior high science book, but there really is more to it than the surface questions asked and answered by scientists and theologians alike.

For the faithful, it comes down to faith. For the scientific, it also comes down to faith. Whose faith is more likely to be correct?

Part of the answer can be found in this short video. Those who think there’s no faith associated with scientific theories clearly don’t understand the mathematics behind the science they claim to hold dear.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets?

Published

on

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets

There’s a trend that has been growing for some time that is reaching a tipping point now. The trend is this: when someone becomes a big story in the news, their Twitter accounts are scoured from beginning to end in order to find Tweets that offend a particular group or protected class. In many cases, this offended group has been the LGBTQ comunity, such as the recent cases of Kevin Hart and Kyler Murray.

Hart was set to host the upcoming Academy Awards when it was “discovered” the comedian used anti-LGBTQ slurs in the past. He deleted the Tweets and apologized, but still felt it necessary to pull out of the Oscars after so much backlash.

Murray, the Heisman trophy winner, was forced to apologize after reports of his Tweets used the same slurs when he was 14- and 15-years-old.

Bigotry in all its forms is contemptible. But where do we draw the line between actual bigotry and unfortunate uses of words or opinions in the past that have been deemed unacceptable today?

Should President Obama (and for that matter, Hillary Clinton) be demonized by the LGBTQ community, mainstream media, and leftists for their perspectives a decade ago? Lest we forget, both announced sharp opposition to gay marriage when they were running for president in 2008. Which is worse, a potential head of state calling for marriage to be defined as being between a man and woman or a teenager in high school referring to someone as a “fag”?

Democratic politicians are apparently allowed to evolve in their beliefs, but comedians and college football players are not.

Anti-Christian Tweets

Sadly, some of the very people who demonize others on Twitter for using unacceptable terms in the past are the same people who also demonize Christians today. I’ve been combing through Tweets of many of the most outspoken proponents of LGBTQ rights, accusers of Islamophopia, and other anti-bigotry leaders. In many cases, these people who are against bigotry demonstrate their own bigotry towards the Judeo-Christian faiths without being big news stories.

I’m not posting the Tweets here. I will not participate in whataboutism, nor do I condone using someone’s past Tweets to highlight their alleged bigotry. There’s a difference between the militant and inexcusable posts by people like Louis Farrakhan and the posts be people like Murray, Hart, or the anti-Christian posts of their detractors. They might see it as okay to demonize people like Hart and Murray for their Tweets, but I will not participate in Twitter witch hunts on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both practices are wrong.

So the question really isn’t about when we start calling out anti-Christian Tweets. It’s about why we should openly debate each other’s perspectives without being condemned for our own perspectives. If someone Tweets something against the Judeo-Christian faith, I wouldn’t expect the Oscars to ban them from being their host. I would see it as an opportunity to share my own perspectives and hopefully show some who are against my faith that there’s something worth exploring.

Today, if you Tweet something deemed unacceptable by the LGBTQ community, you’re in jeopardy of losing much. If you Tweet something against the Judeo-Christian faiths, the left sees it as acceptable. Social media is the most hypocritical medium around.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

9 discoveries that confirm the Bible

Published

on

9 discoveries that confirm the Bible

In this extremely interesting short video detailing archaeological discoveries that confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible, the folks at World Video Bible School highlight some amazing evidence. I don’t know much about WVBS, but I can endorse this video itself.

Here’s the first of the 9 discoveries:

The Pilate Inscriptions

In 1961 in an Italian sponsored dig in Caesarea, archaeologists uncovered a stone that had a Latin inscription on it that said “Pontius Pilatus… prefect of Judea.” That Pilate is mentioned in the Gospel accounts on several occasions. You read in John 18:29:

Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

The find verifying the New Testament statement that Pilate was the prefect of Judea.

8 more

All of these discoveries are proper, indisputable archaeological finds. It’s one thing to contest the Bible’s authenticity as the Word of God, though its very presence and the takeaways we can draw from it point the faithful to the truth. However, claiming it as being historically wrong is being debunked regularly.

The authenticity of the Bible as a historical document is no longer a valid argument against it. As more archaeological evidence points to its physical truths, so too should its words and lessons be completely trustworthy to those seeking the truth.

 

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report