Altervater's Blog – Familienleben in der Bibel

Werte für Familien – die Schatztruhe Bibel ist voll davon

Dieser Blog…

with one comment

erhebt keinerlei Anspruch auf theologische Richtigkeit, erliegt keiner dogmatischen Vermessenheit auf Unfehlbarkeit; er möchte niemanden überzeugen, möchte nicht rechthaben; eher ein subversives Gedankenexperiment, eine mahnende Stimme gegen den Gender-Gleichheits-Furor, ein zorniger Ausruf bei Betrachtung der Goldenen Kälber unserer Zeit Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »


Written by altervater

4. Februar 2010 at 11:41

Bibelstellen, die polygame Beziehungen berichten oder erwähnen oder damit zusammenhängen

leave a comment »

1. Mos 2 24 Darum wird ein Mann seinen Vater und seine Mutter verlassen und seiner Frau anhangen, und sie werden sein ein Fleisch.

1. Mos 4 19 Lamech aber nahm zwei Frauen, eine hieß Ada, die andere Zilla.

1. Mos 16 1 Sarai, Abrams Frau, gebar ihm kein Kind. Sie hatte aber eine ägyptische Magd, die hieß Hagar. 2 Und Sarai sprach zu Abram: Siehe, der HERR hat mich verschlossen, dass ich nicht gebären kann. Geh doch zu meiner Magd, ob ich vielleicht durch sie zu einem Sohn komme. Und Abram gehorchte der Stimme Sarais. Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »

Written by altervater

16. November 2009 at 21:47

Vater von 146 Kindern mit 24 Frauen

leave a comment »

Verschiedene Medien berichten im Frühjahr 2018 über einen Bischof der „Fundamentalistischen Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage“ (FLDS) in Kanada, der mit 24 Frauen 146 Kinder hat und jetzt wegen Polygamie verurteilt worden ist. (National Geographic, Spectrum, Daily Mail, Focus, tz, Welt, Süddeutsche).

Ein älterer Artikel in der FAZ aus 2008 hier, Wikipedia hier. Eine Seite auf hier.

Written by altervater

9. Juli 2018 at 02:41

Veröffentlicht in Uncategorized

Aktuelle Zeitungsmeldungen zu Polygamie

leave a comment »

In Deutschland natürlich nur aus muslimischen Familien, z.B. der hier: „Zu Besuch bei einer Großfamilie – Sabedin Tatari mit seinen beiden Frauen, seinen Eltern, seiner Schwester und den acht Kindern.

Ismail strampelt in seinem Tragesitz, während die Großmutter Brüderchen Ibrahim auf den Schoß nimmt. „Die beiden sind nur eine Woche auseinander“, sagt Vater Sabedin. Wie geht das denn?

„Ich habe zwei Frauen“, erklärt der 24-Jährige. Drei der Kinder hat er mit seiner Ehefrau Samanda (24), die anderen fünf mit seiner zweiten Frau Tatjana.“

Von der TV-bekannten Brown-Family „Sister Wives“ gibt es 2014 einen Artikel bei der WELT hier.

Die Süddeutsche schaut auf die Kosten mit ein paar interessanten Links (hier): „Vielweiberei rechnet sich nicht – Ist Heiraten eigentlich ökonomisch sinnvoll? Interessant wird diese Frage vor allem, wenn man die Vielehe betrachtet. Warum Vielweiberei nicht nur Männer viel Geld kosten würde und eine Polygamie-Steuer am Ende wohl unvermeidlich wäre.“

Christian Post hier mit: „The Bible Doesn’t Condemn Polygamy, Pat Robertson Says“

Written by altervater

3. September 2017 at 05:27

Veröffentlicht in Uncategorized

Reblog aus USA: Drückt Gott manchmal ein Auge zu? War Polygamie eine Sünde im Alten Testament?

leave a comment »

Was polygamy a sin in the Old Testament that God overlooked?

Was polygamy a sin God overlooked in the Old Testament but he finally got rid of in the New Testament? A broader question might be “Does God regulate and authorize behavior he thinks is sinful?”

If you have read many posts on this blog – you will know that I believe based on the Word of God(the whole Bible, not just the New Testament) that God never regulates or authorizes something he believes to be sinful, and therefore polygamy was not(and I would still argue today it is still not sinful when practiced Biblically).

Ever since I was a young man I have always been fascinated by three subjects – theology, history and human nature. Specifically I wanted to understand what parts of our human nature(and even more specifically our male and female natures) are by the design of God, and which ones come from our sin nature corrupting of the God’s original design.

So question that needs answering is – “Is man’s natural instinct to be drawn to multiple women a corruption of his nature or part of his original design by God? ”

Augustinus, Erfinder der Askese
Most Pastors and theologians since the time Augustine(who brought Christian asceticism into the Church) have promoted a belief that this is part of man’s sinful nature, and not the nature he was originally designed with in the garden of Eden. They argue that man was originally made by God with a monogamous nature, and only because of sin did polygamy enter the picture.

I have held this position on Biblical polygamy for 20 years(and no I am not a practicing polygamist) . It always bothered me when I was a young man growing up in Baptist Churches(which I still love and attend ) when the Pastor would come to a passage about polygamy and say something like “This was a sin God overlooked in ancient times, but he finally got rid of it in the New Testament”. This just bugged me! Since when does the God of the Bible regulate and authorize a behavior he believes to be sinful? I have always believed that the God of the Bible can never authorize or regulate sinful behavior and I always will.

Recently I had a little debate about this issue in another forum with a Christian woman when we were discussing the subject of men looking at women. Her name was Lucy. This is part of the conversation where switch to the topic of polygamy:

Diskussion mit Lucy über P. im AT
Lucy started by quoting a statement I am made: “men are naturally polygynous as God designed them.” Can you please provide verse and chapter for us? It seems to me that if that were true, anything but polygamy would be cruel for men and that decans, pastors, etc, should not have to be the husband of only one wife.”

This was my response: Lucy – I would be happy to respond with Bible passages that support the concept that men are naturally polygynous as designed by God.

God allows and regulates polygamy in Moses law

If a man takes a second wife, he cannot deny the first wife food, clothing or sex. He must continue being a husband to her as well, even if he has more romantic attachment to his second wife.

“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.” – Exodus 21:10-11

A man could not take his wife’s sister as a rival wife while his wife lived:
“Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.” – Leviticus 18:18

If a man had two wives, and he did was not romantically attracted to or did not get along with one as good as the other, he still had to acknowledge the rights of her son if he was firstborn:“15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” – Deuteronomy 21:15-17

Leah was blessed by God for giving her husband one of her hand maids as a wife: “9 When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife…17 And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob the fifth son. 18 And Leah said, God hath given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband: and she called his name Issachar. Genesis 30:9 & 17-18

Lucy – many Christians because this does not meet with their preconceived notion that God always intended for men to be in monogamous marriages will say that that God only “allowed polygamy, but it was still sinful”.

The God of the Bible does NOT all sin – EVER. What he allows, he approves of – to say anything less is to question the holiness of God. Now does God sometimes change his laws?

Yes. For instance God allowed the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve to marry(what we would call incest) and this practice was not condemned until later in the Mosaic law.

There was no sin Jacob marrying two sisters(Leah and Rachel) even though he was tricked. God had not yet forbid a man from marrying sisters.

God never condemned polygamy, but rather he regulated it which means he approved of it.

Selbst für Salomo waren 1000 Frauen zu viel
Some will try to point to Deuteronomy 17:15-17 where God says that a King shall not “multiply wives to himself” to say God was condemning polygamy. The problem with that interpretation is that the same man – Moses that wrote that wrote regulations on polygamy! So he certainly was not contradicting himself. Instead what he was saying is that king is not to “horde wives” – much in the way King Solomon did with having 1000 wives! King Solomon abused the concept of polygamy and his heart was indeed lead astray.

As to your point that it would be cruel then to make men have only one wife – you are right that it does make things difficult for polygynous men living a world that has now confined men to monogamous marriage.

However even in Biblical times not all men were able to marry more than one wife, and many did not have any wife at all. This is because male slaves and servants could only have a wife if their master allowed them to. Also poor men often did not marry because fathers would not give their daughters to a man that could not pay a bride price and could not care for their daughters. This left many women that needed husbands and this is why wealthier men had many wives.

So while most men are polygynous in their nature, that does not mean all men should were able to act on that polygynous nature by taking multiple wives.

Lucy replied: “I’m so disappointed to hear you’re back in the Old T. You have mistaken an allowance in ancient times for “men are designed that way,” but the Bible presents monogamy as God’s ideal for marriage.

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [not wives], and they will become one flesh [not fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singularis used.

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach…temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.

Also, note how Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. “Husband” is always singular. “Wife” is always singular. In the above verse, If polygamy were allowable,the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church) and the husband-wife relationship falls apart.

Even going back to Adam and Eve, polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem in brutal times, but it is not the ideal. I can certainly find no proof God designed men that way.

Antwort an Lucy
This was my response to Lucy: Lucy, as Christians we can sometimes be disappointed or surprised by what our fellow brethren believe. I am always disappointed when I find my Christian brethren believing God tossed the Old Testament in the garbage can when he gave us the New Testament and that is not the case at all.

You are absolutely right that Biblically speaking we are no longer under the Law, but under grace- Praise God! “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” – Romans 6:14 (KJV)

But what “law” is Paul speaking of? He is speaking of the cleanliness law, civil law, the sacrificial law, the priestly law that Moses gave to Israel as a theocracy. The Scriptures tell us in Hebrews 8:13 that the old covenant has been replaced with the New – praise God!

In Galatians 3:24-25 the Apostle Paul tells us that the law (the sacrificial part of the law, the civil and the priestly law) was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ – but now that Christ is come we are no longer under that school master – again praise God!

That means we don’t have to stone people who commit adultery, or stone rebellious kids. We don’t have to make sacrifices to cover our sins. We don’t have to follow the cleanliness laws anymore. We don’t have to stay away from certain meats, or practice the festivals. But this does not mean that God’s moral law – contained with the Law of Moses is also obsolete. For instance while Moses law may prescribe death for someone committing murder – we are not required anymore to do that – as that is part of the civil laws of Israel that have been made obsolete. But is murder still sin? Is it still a violation of God’s moral law? Yes.

Paul said this about the moral law contained in Moses Law: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31(KJV)

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet…Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” – Romans 7:7 & 12

Jesus war geradezu ein Fan des AT
Over 350 times Jesus or his Apostles quote from the Old Testament – we don’t have New Testament without the Old Testament. We can learn many things about the character of God, as well as us as his creations through the Old Testament. I hope and pray you and other believers will find a greater appreciation for the Old Testament as it is just as much the Word of God as the New Testament is.

Now on to the issue of polygamy – or to be more specific polygyny (a man having more than one wife). Lucy you are absolutely right that God says they will become “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). He does not say “one fleshes” as you correctly point out. You know why? Because a man has an individual marriage with each one of his wives. If a man and all his wives were one together that would be something called “Polyamory” where multiple live together and sleep with one another. Wives could sleep with wives, or sleep with their husband. In fact you could have several men, and several women in a polymorous relationship. But that is NOT what polygyny is.

Polygyny is where a man has more than one marriage. He has several marriages. But he has a separate and distinct relationship with each of his wives, and God points out in Exodus 21:10-11 he has a separate and distinct duty to provide food, clothing and to become ONE FLESH (have sex) with each of his wives. Apparently God who inspired Moses to write about marriage being one flesh, and speaking of a husband and wife in the singular – saw no contradiction between that and a man having more than one wife.

Is the “husband of one wife” requirement (I Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6) for a Pastor speaking of monogamy or divorce? I would argue based the qualifications of widows who could be supported by (and became servants of) the church that Paul was speaking of a Pastor or Deacon not having been divorced from his first wife: “Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.” – I Timothy 5:9 (KJV)

But let’s say you were right (which I don’t think you are), that Paul was forbidding polygamy by Pastors and Deacons. If he was, then by forbidding it to Pastors and Deacons, he was acknowledging that Christians were actively practicing polygamy. Why when he wrote so much about marriage and divorce, and he even forbid believers from marrying non-believers, why did he not just go ahead and tell believers “you cannot marry more one wife anymore(as God had previously allowed you too)”?”

As to Ephesians 5, I love that God designed marriage to a model of his relationship with his people. In the Old Testament he pictures himself as a husband to his wife Israel, and in the New Testament he pictures marriage as the relationship between Christ and his Church. Beautiful!

Ehe als Bild für Christus und seine Kirche
However I respectfully disagree with you that polygyny destroys this beautiful model of Christ and his Church. In the New Testament the Church is often referred to in the singular, but other times it is referred to in the plural (churches). Just as God referred to Israel as his wife (singular), he also referred to Israel as his wives (plural) when speaking of Israel and Judah in the book of Ezekiel:

“Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother…And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and THEY were mine, and THEY bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.” – Ezekial 23:2 & 4

In the same way while Christ often refers to his Church in the singular in the New Testament, he also refers to his Church in the plural much the same way God referred to Israel and Judah when he speaks of the 7 Churches in the book of Revelation. He speaks to all but one of their unfaithfulness in different areas. It appears that Christ has a separate and distinct relationship with each of his churches – does this somehow hurt the concept of Christ and his Church being a model for marriage – I think not.

When Christ speaks to his Church in the singular, it is in much the same way that a man with many wives would speak to his family (including all his wives) which is also what the Church is compared to in this passage:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” – I Timothy 3:15

I say all this to say, from the OT to NT the concept of a man being married to more than one wife, and having a distinct relationship with each of his wives does not break the model of what God intended marriage to be. A man can be one flesh with each of his wives, as God is one with each of his churches.

As far as your assertion that God creating only one man and one woman (Adam and Eve) in the garden means that was his model for marriage, are you then saying that brothers and sisters marrying was his model for marriage? Because Adam and Eve’s children had to marry one another. The fact is that God could have created two sets of couples so that incest would not have to occur just as he could have created more wives for Adam. He chose not to. But again I draw your attention to the fact that the same God who created Adam and Eve also gave Moses commands allowing men to take more than one wife – if that were a violation of his model he would not have allowed it.

I hope this helps clarify my position.
Reblog aus:

Written by altervater

14. September 2015 at 20:31

Veröffentlicht in Uncategorized

Polygamie in Kenia per Gesetz erlaubt und in Utah nicht mehr verboten

leave a comment »

„Kenia wertet Polygamie mit Bezug auf Bibel auf“, „Kenias Parlament erlaubt Vielehe für Männer“ und „USA: Gericht lockert Verbot der Vielehe“ titelt epd dreimal zum Thema Polygamie Ende 2013, Anfang 2014.

In der Reality-Serie „Sister Wives“ wagt eine polygame Familie mit vier Frauen und 17 Kindern zum ersten Mal den Schritt an die Fernseh-Öffentlichkeit(hier wikipedia, hier die offizielle Seite der Serie mit einigen Videos und vielen Fotos da); weil der Vater Kody Brown nur mit einer seiner Frauen öffentlich-rechtlich verheiratet ist, sind sie bisher der Strafverfolgung nicht ausgesetzt gewesen. „Utah dürfe polygame Lebensgemeinschaften nicht länger verbieten, urteilte Bundesrichter Clark Waddoups in Salt Lake City laut Medienberichten.“ schreibt epd und „Zudem verletze Utahs Verbot der religiös begründeten Vielehe das Verfassungsprinzip der Trennung von Kirche und Staat, hieß es in dem Urteil.“ Der Vater selbst hatte gegen ein entsprechendes Gesetz geklagt.

Zur gesetzlichen Einführung der Polygamie in Kenia schreibt epd: „Der kenianische Staatschef Uhuru Kenyatta hat ein umstrittenes Gesetz zur rechtlichen Anerkennung der Polygamie mit seiner Unterschrift in Kraft gesetzt.“ … „Die Regelung soll das Zivilrecht in Einklang mit kulturellen Traditionen bringen. Zunächst sah der Gesetzesentwurf ein Vetorecht der Ehefrau vor. Die männlichen Parlamentarier beschlossen jedoch über Parteigrenzen hinweg, die Klausel zu streichen. Präsident Uhuru Kenyatta muss das Gesetz noch in Kraft setzen. Es entspreche nicht der Tradition, dass eine Frau ihre Erlaubnis für eine zweite oder dritte Heirat geben müsse, sagten männliche Parlamentarier laut Berichten des kenianischen Senders Capital FM. „Wenn man eine afrikanische Frau heiratet, muss sie wissen, dass die zweite auf dem Weg ist und die dritte“, sagte der Abgeordnete Junet Mohammed. „Das ist Afrika.“ und: „Bei den beschlossenen Änderungen im Eherecht wurde auch das Verbot gleichgeschlechtlicher Ehen festgehalten.“

„In ihren Plädoyers für das neue Ehegesetz argumentierten die kenianischen Abgeordneten im März über alle Parteigrenzen hinweg, die polygame Ehe werde von der Bibel unterstützt und entspreche der afrikanischen Tradition. Auf die Bibel beriefen sich die männlichen Abgeordneten auch in Bezug auf das Einspruchsrecht der Erstfrau, das in dem Gesetzesentwurf ursprünglich enthalten war. In Kenia sind mehr als 80 Prozent der 43 Millionen Einwohner Christen. König David und König Salomon hätten niemanden um Erlaubnis gefragt, ehe sie weitere Frauen heirateten, erklärte damals der Mehrheitsführer im Parlament, Aden Duale.“ Der kenianische Staatschef Uhuru Kenyatta hat ein umstrittenes Gesetz zur rechtlichen Anerkennung der Polygamie mit seiner Unterschrift in Kraft gesetzt.

Die WELT fasst zusammen: „Zwar dürfen Polygamisten auch nach dessen Urteilsspruch nicht standesamtlich heiraten. Allerdings darf der Staat auch nichts mehr gegen polygame Lebensgemeinschaften unternehmen.“

Die NZZ berichtet über diese Sendung und die Debatte, die sie in den USA auslöste (hier) und bringt einen weiteren Aspekt ins Spiel: „Neben den Absplitterungen der Mormonen erlaubt, wie der Jurist ausführt, eine weitere Glaubensgemeinschaft Polygamie, welche in den USA von einigen Gläubigen in mehr oder weniger grosser Heimlichkeit praktiziert wird: der Islam. Dies ist ein Thema, das zu verbalisieren als politisch höchst unkorrekt gilt.“ Das ist die Parallele zu Europa: wie es der Islam schafft, daß Kritik und schon Hinterfragung an sich als „politisch unkorrekt“ stigmatisiert wird, ist bemerkenswert und unserer (noch) freiheitlichen Gesellschaften unwürdig.

In der New York Times schreibt 2011 ein Jura-Professor dazu; wie Kody Brown in seiner Klage gegen das Verbot der Polygamie, so nimmt auch er ein Urteil des Supreme Court aus 2003 als Ausgangspunkt, das die Kriminalisierung von einvernehmlichen homosexuellen Verbindungen beendete. Auch quantitativ kann die Frage nicht unbeachtet bleiben: „Utah and eight other states make polygamy a crime, while 49 states have bigamy statutes that can be used to prosecute plural families. And they’re not a small population: the number of fundamentalist Mormon or Christian polygamists alone has been estimated to be as high as 50,000. When Muslim as well as nonreligious plural families are considered, the real number is likely many times greater. „

Der Vergleich mit dem Urteil zur Homosexualität aus 2003 endet eindeutig: es gibt keinen Grund, einvernehmliche polygame Beziehungen zu verbieten: „Ultimately, the question is whether polygamy is allowed under the privacy principles articulated in Lawrence. The court did not state exclusions for unpopular relationships. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter” but rather “two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle.” The Browns are quite similar. They want to be allowed to create a loving family according to the values of their faith.“

Für ihn ist das Verbot der Polygamie ein klarer Fall von unzulässiger Einmischung des Staates in das Privatleben: „The case of the Browns, for whom I am lead counsel, is a clear example of unacceptable government intrusion. The family has not been accused of child abuse or other crime, in almost a year of being under criminal investigation.“

Im Grunde geht es um das Recht auf Privatheit, um das Recht, in Ruhe gelassen zu werden: „Civil libertarians should not be scared away by the arguments of people like Justice Scalia. We should fight for privacy as an inclusive concept, benefiting everyone in the same way. Regardless of whether it is a gay or plural relationship, the struggle and the issue remains the same: the right to live your life according to your own values and faith.“

 PS: Auch die Süddeutsche und die ZEIT hatten das Thema aufgegriffen.

n this photo gallery, the Browns take a cross-country trip to visit another polygamist family in Missouri and see the sights. Nathanael Richard, his wives Christina and Rebecca, and their nine children are pictured here.

n this photo gallery, the Browns take a cross-country trip to visit another polygamist family in Missouri and see the sights. Nathanael Richard, his wives Christina and Rebecca, and their nine children are pictured here. Quelle:

















Quelle: TLC

Kody Brown aus Sister Wives und seine vier Frauen Quelle: TLC

Written by altervater

20. September 2014 at 19:04

Veröffentlicht in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , , ,

Der richtige Zeitpunkt – ein zorniger Ausruf von Monika Ebeling: „So eine Sauerei!“

leave a comment »

Aus Ihrem Blog:

Der Mensch ist einem Schwein genetisch sehr nah, heißt es. So musste ich schon schmunzeln, als ich einen Bericht über die Hormonbehandlung von Sauen im Fernsehen sah. Landwirt Alhlers wird stellvertretend wegen des Einsatzes von Hormonen an seinen Sauen gescholten, aber wer macht eigentlich den vielen Medizinern, Hormonverschreibern und – herstellern Ärger, die menschliche Schwangerschaft und Geburt, auch durch den Einsatz von Hormonen, immer mehr zu einem klinischen Experiment verkommen lassen und dafür sorgen, dass sich Hormone weitreichend in unserer Umwelt ausbreiten?

Es ist ja toll, wie sich der BUND für die arme Sau einsetzt, aber ist nicht manch ´arme Frau´ in ähnlich ´saumäßiger´ Verfassung? Ich habe noch nirgendwo eine Stimme gehört, Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »

Written by altervater

7. Januar 2014 at 08:29

Veröffentlicht in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , ,

2014: drei Artikel zur späteren Diskussion

leave a comment »

Norbert Blüm greift in einem Artikel in der FAS das Verfassungsgericht an, hier die FAZ darüber in Kurzversion, der FAS-Artikel sicher später online.

Ebenfalls in der FAZ ein Artikel „Man muss wahnsinnig sein, heute ein Kind zu kriegen – Die tollste Sache der Welt ist in unserer Gesellschaft für viele zu einem Albtraum geworden. Wie könnte man das wieder ändern?
Ein zorniger Aufschrei: „Ich möchte aber nicht so ein effizienter Funktions-Arsch im Dienst meines versklavten Ichs, meines Arbeitgebers und der Deutschlandproduktion werden, nur unter den gegebenen Umständen wäre ich das bestimmt. Zum einen weil sich der eigene Optimierungswahn nur schwer beherrschen lässt, und zum anderen weil die Dinge so liegen: Die berufstätige Mutter ist inzwischen das vorherrschende Rollenideal. Es darf aber nichts herrschen. Womit nicht gesagt ist, dass es falsch ist, wenn eine Frau für sich entscheidet, dass sie nach der Geburt so schnell wie möglich arbeiten möchte. Es darf aber ebenso wenig falsch sein, wenn eine Frau sich entschließt, soundso lange zu Hause zu bleiben, wenn ihre finanziellen Möglichkeiten das denn erlauben.“ Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »

Written by altervater

6. Januar 2014 at 05:30

Lena Kürschner: Offener Brief zur grünen Familienpolitik

leave a comment »

„Erst wenn eine Schwangerschaft auch am Arbeitsplatz mit „Wie schön, wie können wir Dir helfen!“, und nicht mit „Oh Gott, und jetzt? Such schon mal einen Krippenplatz, dass Du schnell wieder arbeiten kannst!“ kommentiert wird, sind wir ein wirklich familienfreundliches Land.“

So endet der offene Brief einer grünen Lokalpolitikerin (hier und hier), die darin mit der Familienpolitik ihrer Noch-Partei abrechnet.

„Am erschreckendsten finde ich in der ganzen Diskussion eigentlich, dass die Perspektive des Kindes fast vollständig ausgeblendet wird. Kein Kind, das noch nicht mal laufen, geschweige denn sprechen kann, trennt sich gerne den ganzen Tag von der Hauptbezugsperson, in der Regel der Mutter. Ein einjähriges Kind braucht kein Bildungsprogramm. Es braucht ein Bindungs-“Programm“. Immer mehr Forschungsergebnisse zeigen, wie problematisch frühe Fremdbetreuung sein kann. Warum wird das von der Politik so konsequent ignoriert?“

„Würden sich die Grünen die Mühe machen, diese Wählerschaft ernst zu nehmen, statt sie belehren zu wollen, Den Rest des Beitrags lesen »

Written by altervater

21. November 2013 at 05:04