John Stonestreet – Page 4

Ready to Change the World? Eat Dinner With Your Family: Guest Column

Dec 16, 2024John StonestreetChristianityChristianity, Family Time

If the Christian’s civic duty is only to vote, then it is now safe to return to life as normal, at least until the next election cycle starts in a few months. However, much more is involved in the fight for the soul of any nation, including this one. Our civic duty extends beyond the ballot box.

The historic shifts in the platforms of both parties during this past election are not just due to changes in popular opinion. Rather, they point to how dramatically our collective cultural imagination has shifted, a shift that reflects our institutions. Public schools, universities, media outlets, digital platforms, publishing houses, Hollywood, corporate America, and even churches have become more progressive. Critical theory and gender ideology not only dominate the required reading lists of many schools but are also embedded in the community guidelines of countless digital platforms, the HR policies of many businesses and healthcare systems, not to mention the personnel of various government agencies.

But this collective cultural drift so evident in our politics has not simply resulted from bad ideas or personnel. The conservative Jewish political scholar Yoram Hazony once argued, “It is not disbelief that plagues us but dishonor.” Specifically, he meant the dishonor of the most essential institutions and the traditions kept by them. The breakdown of the family, the compromise and collapse of our religious consensus, and the loss of civil society has contributed greatly to an uncritical acceptance of bad ideas and destructive patterns of behavior.

As Hazony reported, even those who claim to be committed to and excited about conservatism have little intention of actually engaging in those practices worth conserving. Keeping the sabbath, reading Scripture, attending religious services, and hosting regular family dinners are more than just nostalgic traditions. And yet, as Hazony explained, these essential habits of a healthy and flourishing society are losing out weekend after weekend to heading to “the mountains or the beach, or staying home ‘to finish something for work.’”

Civic duty and political change cannot be reduced to how one votes. It’s how one lives, especially with those to whom we are (or should be) the closest, that matters more. For example, studies have long shown that regular family dinners bring enormous benefit, especially to children. According to the Director of the Family Dinner Project Dr. Anne Fishel, regularly gathering around the dinner table results in better nutrition, less obesity, and better mental health:

Regular family dinners are associated with lower rates of depression, and anxiety, and substance abuse, and eating disorders, and tobacco use, and early teenage pregnancy, and higher rates of resilience and higher self-esteem.

Even more, regular family dinners are also a predictor of long-term success. For school-aged kids, frequent family mealtime is “an even more powerful predictor of high achievement scores than time spent in school, doing homework, playing sports, or doing art.”

Yet, for all these benefits, only 54% of American families sit down to a daily mealtime, and for many who do, family dinnertime is constantly besieged by digital distraction. Even before the advent of smartphones and tablets, Neil Postman warned that “(a) family that does not or cannot control the information environment of its children is barely a family at all.”

It may sound too simple to be true, but it’s not. One way that Christians can make a lasting, significant difference in politics is by protecting and cultivating the dinner table. The future of our nation may indeed depend on whether Christians make family mealtimes, as one non-Christian sociologist has described, a “sacred space.”

It matters greatly who is in the White House, but it matters so much more who we are in our houses, in our houses of worship, and around our dinner tables.

Bioethics and Big Sheep: Guest Column

Nov 19, 2024John StonestreetBioethicsBioethics, Human Cloning

If cloning farm animals is illegal, should society clone children?

Don’t let anyone pull the wool over your eyes, sheep are big business. So big, in fact, they landed one 81-year-old Montana man in jail.

The Washington Post reported recently that Arthur Schubarth was sentenced to six months in federal prison for illegally cloning a giant species of sheep and using it to produce even bigger hybrids for lucrative canned hunts. In 2013, Schubarth acquired tissue from a Marco Polo argali, a rare and protected species of bighorn sheep from Kyrgyzstan. He then contracted with a cloning facility to create embryos of what he called “Montana Mountain King,” a 300-pound hybrid breed with the curling horns sought after by high-dollar hunters.

Schubarth then bred the Mountain King to North American bighorn sheep, resulting in an even larger hybrid species, which he began selling to captive hunting preserves for up to $10,000 a head. He also sold dozens of DNA samples to breeders around the country. So, it’s difficult to know just how many of these Jurassic Park hybrids there are.

Schubarth’s business venture violated numerous conservation and commerce laws. As one assistant director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service put it, he risked “introducing diseases and compromising the genetic integrity of our wild [bighorn] sheep populations.”

The bizarre story raises an important question: Why are we so good at recognizing and enforcing ethical limits when it comes to medical or genetic experimentation on animals, but not humans?

These two discussions were, at one point, connected. Remember Dolly the Sheep? It was 30 years ago that the cloned sheep made headlines. Hailed as the first “successful” experiment in cloning, Dolly sparked debate about the promises and limits of this technology, especially about if and how it should be used with humans. Buried in the press coverage was just how unsuccessful this success story was. Dolly only lived about half as long as a normal sheep and was the sole survivor among hundreds of attempts, many of which were deformed.

The implications for humans were among the main reasons that, several years later, then-President George W. Bush banned the cloning of human embryos. At the time, he was widely criticized for standing in the way of science and dashing the hopes of the disabled.

However, the years have vindicated Bush’s policy. The promised cures of human embryonic stem cells never materialized, even after the Obama Administration lifted the ban in 2009. By contrast, non-embryo-destructive methods of stem cell research have yielded hundreds of treatments.

Bush, in fact, approached the issue in a fundamentally different way than his critics and successor. His policy emerged after he convened a remarkable panel of experts. The President’s Council on Bioethics included not only scientists with the knowledge of how to clone and experiment on embryos, but philosophers, ethicists, legal scholars, and even theologians who asked whether we should do this; and if so, when and how. Their work, collected in a volume called Human Dignity and Bioethics, demonstrates the breadth of source material about human personhood and value that was consulted. In addition to loosening restrictions, President Obama replaced the theologians, philosophers, and ethicists from the President’s Council on Bioethics with more scientists and researchers.

The problem with that approach is even more obvious today, when technology has come so far. If an old guy in Montana can pull off a do-it-yourself sheepzilla, imagine what’s happening with human cloning in China. For that matter, compare the concern with Schubarth’s scientific meddling to the widespread indifference of human manufacturing in the United States. IVF, surrogacy, and gamete “donation” have made it possible to create children to-order, often for same-sex couples or those who’d simply rather outsource the work of pregnancy and birth. We buy, produce, and distribute children to couples, throuples, and other relational mix-and-match arrangements without an ethical care in the world. And who knows what technology will make possible tomorrow?

Whatever it will be, we’re not ready. The consistent trend in science is to plow ahead and save concerns about right and wrong for later. By the time someone turns up doing with humans what Arthur Schubarth did with sheep, it will be too late to hit the brakes.

In the presidential debate awhile back, Kamala Harris said we should “trust the experts.” What she didn’t clarify is “which experts?” It’s one thing to master a technique like cloning or IVF. It’s another to know whether to ever use that mastery, evaluate if and how it helps people flourish, and to know who is qualified to decide.

For those questions, we need those who make a habit of asking not only what’s possible or profitable, but what’s right, and what honors the value of every human made in God’s image. Dolly, the sheep nature never intended, got us asking these questions decades ago. Maybe that can happen again.

Time to Call Off All Bets on Sports Gambling: Guest Column

Nov 4, 2024John StonestreetGamblingCasino Gambling, Sports Betting

The addiction of gambling hits not just in dollars, but in human lives.

A few years into widespread legalized sports gambling, the results are in, and it is clear that this industry is devastating for individuals, families, and even sports. In an article for The Atlantic, Charles Faith Lehman states the truth bluntly: “Legalizing Sports Gambling Was a Huge Mistake.” The data supports that claim.

$35 billion in bets will be placed on NFL games alone this season. That is about a third more than last year, and 100% more than just six years ago, when sports gambling became legal (again). The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 effectively banned sports gambling in most places, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law in 2018, paving the way for states to regulate their own industries. Today, in 38 states plus Washington, D.C., there are no meaningful regulations.

As a result, sportsbooks have raked in over $300 billion in just six years. Obviously, that money did not come from the winners. According to Lehman, the return of sports gambling “has caused a wave of financial and familial misery” that “disproportionately falls on the most economically precarious households.” In other words, those who have the least money to lose do the vast majority of losing.

The damage is enormous. For every dollar spent on betting, household investing fell by an average of two dollars. Since 2018, there have been large increases in over-drafted bank accounts and maxed out credit cards. Legalized sports gambling has increased “the risk that a household goes bankrupt by 25 to 30 percent,” and it has caused debt delinquency to surge.

This financial strain, in turn, worsens social pathologies. According to research cited by Lehman, an upset loss for an NFL home team correlates to a 10% spike in male domestic abuse. Overall, states with legalized sports gambling have seen an estimated 9% increase in “intimate-partner violence.”

Given this data comes from the same states just a few years apart, it is highly unlikely these correlations are mere coincidences. Sports gambling is causing financial ruin and domestic violence in homes. As Lehman put it, measuring this industry is more than counting dollars and cents. It is counting the cost to human lives, especially to women and children dragged into a destructive and addictive pastime.

In the age of smartphones, betting has become easier than ever. Wagers can be placed on virtually all aspects of a game, from individual pitches to how long the national anthem lasts. People can make bets from home without traveling to the seedy part of town. Notifications in eye-catching apps and a deluge of catchy ads with false promises open up the industry to people who might never have otherwise gambled.

And legalized sports gambling corrupts sports. Tennis players, Olympians, and NBA referees have all been caught fixing games and matches. Last year, the NFL suspended five players for gambling-related violations, and a Sportradar analysis found a 250% year-over-year increase in suspicious matches in basketball alone.

According to Lottery USA, the odds of winning the Mega Millions jackpot are one in over 302.6 million. Powerball is roughly one in 292.2 million. For comparison, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about one in a million. The odds are slightly better in sports betting because, as the adage goes, “The house always wins.” Sportsbooks don’t make $300 billion in six years by minting millionaires out of their customers.

The national experiment with sports gambling has failed miserably. Laws are often necessary to protect freedom and the common good. Though “consenting adults doing what they want with their money” sounds like freedom, it is as misleading as the idea of “consenting adults doing what they want with their bodies.” In both cases, poorly defined freedom enslaves, addicts, and harms others. In both cases, so-called “consent” is anything but consensual for the innocent parties dragged along, and whose lives are ruined as a result.

This scourge of an industry is based on a distorted view of freedom that leaves people in bondage. That should be more than enough reason for the American people to call off all bets and reverse on sports gambling, again.