That's a term that everyone interprets their own way, without even realising that they have different values to the person standing next to them; different people's "family values" can conflict in significant and very incompatible ways.
So what are "good old family values"? If your young, unmarried daughter falls pregnant, should you cast her out or should you double-down on helping her? Both of those are good old family values.
Good old family values would discourage young, unmarried women from getting pregnant in the first place. That is absolutely not how society works today, so let's start there instead of your absurd example.
They would also encourage helping the weak, the down-and-out, etc.
There was a time in the US when a needy person could walk up to nearly any door (except perhaps those of a few known scoundrels) and expect to find a meal, a bed for the night, clothes if needed, breakfast, and (depending on circumstances) some work to do the next day for pay.
The first great awakening had a profound effect on society - sermons preached in the 1700s directly influenced the US founders, belief in God and moral accountability to him became a basic assumption of society.
"Family values" is a term that focuses on where Biblical teachings have the most impact (the family) but it fails to capture the worldview within which such values arise.
> There was a time in the US when a needy person could walk up to nearly any door (except perhaps those of a few known scoundrels) and expect to find a meal, a bed for the night, clothes if needed, breakfast, and (depending on circumstances) some work to do the next day for pay.
Do you have a source on this? Genuinely asking because I’ve never heard of this depiction of early America, but I’m also a layman and not at all educated on American history beyond 101 college. What if you were black or East Asian?
Well, to pick a more contentious example, how would you find a marriage partner for that young women?
In many parts of the world, the answer is that her parents would either simply pick her partner or heavily influence her options. In much of the U.S., that would be unthinkable! How do we reconcile those different family values?
Unless you can demonstrate how to separate what you classify as "absurd extremes" from your cultural context, I think it's fair to use any examples of stable, religiously upheld, prosperous cultures to criticize traditionalism for the sake of traditionalism.
Is there a causative study that evidences that religiosity prevents unwanted teenage pregnancies? My understanding is that, even as religiosity is decreasing, so are teenage pregnancies today!
It wasn't how it worked then, either, at least for any value of 'then' in England for the past thousand years or so. Yes, premarital pregnancy was strongly discouraged. But it still happened a lot. And both of GP's family responses were absolutely common at different times, and both came from a deeply family-centred place. So I don't see it as absurd at all. Religion has always been for the sinners as much as the saints.
That is how many societies do work today, including societies inside the United States.
Absurd example? It happens every day. Every day parents cut their children off for falling pregnant in some way that's unapproved, and every day parents support their pregnant-without-permission child.
That's a term that everyone interprets their own way, without even realising that they have different values to the person standing next to them; different people's "family values" can conflict in significant and very incompatible ways.
So what are "good old family values"? If your young, unmarried daughter falls pregnant, should you cast her out or should you double-down on helping her? Both of those are good old family values.