Forget Father’s Day & Dismiss Mother’s Day

I know that neither of those two calendar highlights are close to us which makes this a good time to reconsider them in the cold light of clinical analysis.

Why does the culture make such a big deal about these two arbitrary days while nobody thinks of establishing a Husband’s Day and a Wife’s Day?

Reason 1: A culture fundamentally hostile to the traditional Biblical family model, is not keen on celebrating husbands and wives. Recognizing a mother or a father makes no comment about whether mom and dad were married when they conceived you or whether they invested years in raising you in the cocoon of their love and commitment.

Reason 2: Every one of us have or had a mother and a father so those two days are ‘inclusive’ a word that has become almost doctrinal in the theology of secular fundamentalism. But not everyone is or has been a husband or a wife. Celebrating these pillars of society might make some feel bad.

Reason 3: It’s really easy to observe Mother’s Day or Father’s Day (provided you know who he is). After all, you merely had to have been born and then take Mom to lunch once a year. However, observing Husband’s Day implies you continue accepting the obligations of wifehood and observing Wife’s Day means you remain a committed and faithful husband.

No wonder a contaminated culture makes a big fuss about mothers and fathers but ignores marriage.

6 thoughts on “Forget Father’s Day & Dismiss Mother’s Day”

  1. One thing I notice is the sharp contrast between Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. I recall reading that even in prison, the prisoners all line up to call their mothers, but few if any bother to call their fathers on that appointed day.

    Even in church (at least, in American evangelical churches), on Mother’s Day, the sermon is about Hannah or Mary and how great mothers are.

    On Father’s Day, the best you can hope for is that the pastor forgets it. Otherwise, I’ve sat through sermons that amount to chewing the men out for not doing enough. This is for the men who are in church, with their families, who work hard to provide for their families. As a veteran, I recall leadership principles not to chew men out in the presence of those they are supposed to be leading. I quit going to church on Father’s Day for several years. I wanted to ask one pastor “Do you want me to work to provide for my family, or do you want me to quit my job and spend all my time with them living under a bridge?”

    Back to your point, Rabbi, it is interesting that we don’t have institutionalized Husband’s and Wive’s days. I think the other commenter brought up the reason very well. We just can’t glorify the traditional family when there is so much “progress” to be achieved, can we?

    Thank you for your work and God bless.

    1. Rabbi Daniel Lapin

      I am always baffled how little some pastors and rabbis know about how the world REALLY works. You’re trying to attract people to your house of worship and yet you do all you can to make them feel miserable while they are there. On the other hand, there are truly brilliant rabbis and pastors who possess wonderful leadership abilities. They are easily identified by the eager crowds filling their pews.

  2. Hi my Rabbi:

    You’ve taught us in one of your April 2017 podcasts (and I quote):

    “The two sure ways of building a bridge over the dark abyss of mortality is by building a family and by building your finances.”

    And one of your two pieces of advice for a young man who desires to have a successful life is to get AND KEEP a job. The second piece of advice is to get married.

    The commitment and responsibilities of marriage accelerates the ability to create and accrue wealth just as water pressure against its hull causes a sailboat to accelerate in the wind. Along with its associated independence, this makes the Biblical family model a major impediment to the creation of a socialist state. The reasons why become crystal clear upon a quick review of Saul Alinsky’s list of the eight levels of control necessary before a government is able to create a socialist state.

    Here are Alinsky’s eight rules (the first of which, Alinsky is said to have claimed, is the most important):

    1.) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people.

    2.) Increase the poverty level as high as possible; poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

    3.) Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way, you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.

    4.) Gun Control – Remove the ability of the people to defend themselves from the government. That way you are able to create a police state.

    5.) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).

    6.) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school.

    7.) Religion – Remove the belief in God from government and schools.

    8.) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent, and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with the support of the poor.

    Saul Alinsky (Jan. 20, 1909 – June 12, 1972)

    “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere”.

    1. Rabbi Daniel Lapin

      Dear Peter–
      this is scary stuff, isn’t it? Now the eight rules you quote, I believe do not appear in Alinsky’s book of Rules for Radicals. It is a simplified list compiled by his faithful student and ardent socialist, Frances Fox Piven.
      I remember that Alinsky came up with a slightly longer list in his book–I am sorry, I don’t have time right now to find it in my library and check for sure–maybe 12 or 13 rules. They are more impenetrable and obtuse than the 8 you cite.
      Now when Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto just before our War Between The States, they very unequivocally did call for the elimination of the traditional family. In fact one of the main reasons they (as well as today’s American progressives) hate inheritance and love a 100% death tax is because of its hurtful impact on families.
      Great to hear from you and blessings to you and M

      1. Ah yes, Ms. Piven, of Russian Jewish immigrant (to Canada) parents. Another pointy-headed academic who’s toxic ideas have had a particularly pernicious impact on civilization.

        Back in the mid 60’s, she and her husband Richard Clower (d. 2001) authored what has become known as the “Cloward-Piven strategy”, advocating ever-increasing enrollment in social welfare programs with the goal of collapsing the system, ostensibly to “force reforms, leading to a guaranteed annual income”.

        The real outcome would amount to a guaranteed portion of hay and silage from dairy farmer Jones, or perhaps a daily banana from the zoo keeper.

        Btw, I saw this list of “8 levels of control” in an internet article, completely separate from Alinsky’s “Rules” book, although the list was attributed (apparently indirectly) to Alinsky. My understanding is that the “8 levels” are, as you’ve suggested, a simplified version of V. I. Lenin’s original scheme for world-wide communism (of course based upon Marx and Engles Communist Manifesto). Lenin was standing on the shoulders of Marx and Engles, while the evil genius of Alinsky was refining Lenin, and Piven apparently refining Alinsky. And so it goes.

        As you have so clearly explained in your tremendous [not to be missed!] two-CD recording titled Tower of Power, in every epoch of time there are forces at work endeavoring to enslave mankind. Nine mysterious verses of scripture at the start of Genesis Chapter 11, explained in phenomenal detail.

        And what motivates the Frances Fox Pivens of this world? In order to answer this question, one would need to have an understanding of the way the world REALLY works (wink wink, nod nod). As you’ve explained in the prefacing remarks to your June 18, 2017 Podcast:

        “… In a nutshell … , the reason is because deep at a perhaps subconscious level, they understand that Western civilization is a product of Christianity, and Christianity is a product of Judaism, and Judaism is a product of a remarkable, mysterious, majestic volume called the Bible.”

        By the way, I just happened to have Alinsky’s 12 Rules handy:

        RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”
        RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”
        RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
        RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
        RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
        RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
        RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
        RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”
        RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
        RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
        RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
        RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

        Thank you for sharing what’s on your mind. All the best to you and Susan. Have great week!

        1. Rabbi Daniel Lapin

          Yes, sadly. I wish it weren’t true but secular Jewish infatuation with Marxism (the entire Frankfurt School) for me, validates the revelation at Sinai. Mrs Piven was just another in a long line. Winston Churchill mused about Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik movement back in the earliest years of the 20th century. Alinsky himself is another instance.

Comments are closed.

Shopping Cart