Continuity between Obama and Bush

George W. Bush: huge spending on war, tax cuts, an expensive medical entitlement plan (prescription drugs), a stimulus plan (2008 tax rebate of $152 billion) and bailouts.

Barrack Obama: continuation of war spending, tax cuts, an expensive medical entitlement plan (2009 Health Care reform), a stimulus plan (2009 stimulus of $787 billion) and bailouts.

Bottom line: More government and more debt.

I realize there are some important differences between Bush and Obama and between Republicans and Democrats. But when you stop and look at the bottom line these last eight years, they aren’t really all that different. The continuity between Bush and Obama on spending, which is a strong indicator of priorities, is pretty amazing. The irony is that the Tea Party protesters were silent when Bush engaged in “socialized medicine” while the anti-war folks on the left haven’t exactly been in the streets attacking Obama as a warmonger, even as he is poised to send tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan.

It just goes to show that much of our politics is about sheer partisanship, cheering for ones own party, or rather team instead of principals. The bigger problem, and one that transcends both parties and all elections, is that we as a society, and this includes both the left, right, moderates and independents, simply don’t recognize limits. This is why both the government and many American citizens aren’t living within their means financial. Debt is simply a symptom of a greater problem.

Perhaps our economy will recover soon. If it does, we may be able to outgrow our debt. But if it doesn’t, and if we continue to pile up debt as both Bush and now Obama have done, and their successors may continue to do, we may likely face decline as a nation. After all, debt and economic decline have brought down other empires in the past.

The problem with Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin is back in the news with her recent book “Going Rogue.” I don’t plan to read her book, but from Rod Dreher’s review of it on NPR it doesn’t tell us anything new. While I found her intriguing when McCain first tapped her as his running mate, I soon came to the conclusion that she wasn’t ready for prime time so to speak and probably never will be. Apparently, polls have shown that the majority of Americans believe this is the case as well. I haven’t changed my opinion of her since then, and her decision to resign as governor of Alaska only reinforced my views of her. Furthermore, I do not think her continued presence in national politics is positive for conservatism. Here are three reasons why:

1) Liberals have unfairly attacked her family and personal life. It is obvious that they intensely dislike her not simply because of her politics, but because she is a religious women from “flyover country.” Irrespective of liberal prejudices against Palin, her family life is in full of drama. This isn’t likely to change, which means that the swirl of controversy that follows her everywhere will always be a distraction from much more important issues.

2) Palin loves to rail against elites and use more “folksy” language. Unfortunately, her speeches, interviews and writing have revealed that her communication skills don’t go beyond “folksy” and at times are riddled with grammatical errors. The way she speaks reminds me too much of some of the poor freshmen essays I have graded. Her interview with Katie Couric last year was embarrassingly bad. This is simply unacceptable for someone at the highest level of politics.

3) On the issues, Palin has shown that she is incapable of going beyond basic Republican talking points. This is true for both foreign policy and economics. She doesn’t appear to have thought through any important issue at length and certainly hasn’t questioned the assumptions of the neocons or the idea currently popular among many Republicans that tax cuts are always the answer to economic problems. This too is unacceptable and in my opinion alone renders her unfit for higher office.

Republicans are currently in the political wilderness. Hopefully they will use their time out of power to consider why they lost power and to reconsider their devotion to the neocons and their big spending ways under Bush. From what I’ve seen so far, I’m not convinced they have learned any lessons. They still have little credibility with me. If Palin continues as a popular figure in the GOP, and especially if she emerges as a serious contender in the 2012 presidential primaries, it will only be further evidence that the Republicans have learned nothing from the many errors of the Bush years.

Marriage and the “gay marriage” debate: Part II The Libertarian Approach

In many respects, the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s marked the triumph of an individualistic, sentimentalistic view of marriage. Some feminists in this period alleged that the institution of marriage was part of patriarchical oppression. In addition, sexual libertines claimed that marriage was obsolete and that couples did not need “a piece of paper” to live together and love each other. Most people did not accept these radical claims. However, the dominant view of the period was that marriage was first and foremost about love and individual happiness. If an individual was unhappy in a marriage, increasingly the idea that the union should be dissolved and the individual should seek another relationship that made them “happy” was accepted.

In all of this, the interests of children took a backseat to the individual happiness and felt needs of their parents. The idea that an unhappy couple should fight to work things out or even stay together for the sake of the children was seen as outmoded and thus was increasingly rejected. As social attitudes about marriage changed, so too did the state laws, which allowed for no-fault divorce. The result was a sharp rise in the divorce rate, pitting men against women in bitter court cases over property, alimony and child custody. Predictably, all sides, men, women and children suffered. Unsurprisingly, the new attitudes about marriage and sex led to an increase in out of wedlock births. Today, they are quite common, especially among the poor, which only fuels a cycle of poverty. And while the divorce rate has somewhat stabilized, divorce has scarred many people and made them wary of marriage, which in part has resulted in the rise of couples not bothering with marriage and living together without being married, either as a trial run to marriage or in lieu of it. Because divorce is so common and the financial and emotional risks of divorce are so great, to an extent who can blame couples for living together without being married? Unless one has strong religious convictions against pre-marital cohabitation, why not the way things are these days?

Clearly our society has greatly changed in the last 40-50 years. The state has already greatly changed its approach to marriage as most states have allowed no fault divorce. Should it further change its approach? Should it allow “gay marriages” as a few states now do? Or should the state get out of the marriage business altogether?

I would argue that society and the state’s view of marriage is in flux at the moment. At this juncture, there are three possible courses for the state, or rather barring the federal government once again trampling on states' rights, states to take in the future with respect to marriage. The first course is to return to the idea that marriage is primarily an institution for the bearing and raising of children. This would mean ending no-fault divorce laws and only allowing divorce in very limited circumstances such as abuse, abandonment or adultery. It would probably involve state-required or sponsored counseling for couples in troubled marriages, especially couples with children. It would also mean that “gay marriages” or any other alternative marriages would be seen as a farce and out of the question.

Frankly, I’m not sure if this first approach is even possible in our society today. The second course, which would best be described as the Libertarian approach, would entail the state getting out of the marriage business altogether. The term “marriage” has strong religious connotations for many people. As the state should not be involved in religious matters, it should no longer use the term “marriage.” It should find another term such as “civil union” to cover the legal aspects currently covered under state-sanctioned marriages such as shared property, child custody (which should always favor the biological parents first), benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance and so on. In the Libertarian approach, the state would grant civil unions to any and all consenting adult who desire them. Consenting adults would be free to dissolve their civil union if they desire, much like divorce today. Religious bodies would still be free to conduct weddings and recognize marriages as they see fit. And with the state out of the marriage business, “marriage” would become strictly a religious or cultural matter for individuals, their faith communities and their families and friends.

The Libertarian approach would have the state grant civil unions to pretty much any type of arrangement consenting adults might form. The phrase “consenting adult” is always the operative one as it is self-evident that children and non-consenting adults should not be allowed to enter into legally binding relationships. Civil unions would be allowed for all kinds of relationships, including heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, plural marriages of various kinds, incestuous relationships and even non-sexual relationships such as friends or roommates living together. The state’s concern here would not be to impose any kind of value-judgment on relationships. Rather, the idea is to allow consenting adults to live their lives as they see fit and manage their property and benefits according to their wishes. This does entail risks as the relationships they enter could dissolve in the future, with the negative financial consequences that we see with divorce today.

There is a third option as well. This seems to be the approach of most left-liberals today. This would be for the state to continue to issue marriage licenses as it already does, but to issue them to same-sex couples as well. The justification for same-sex or “gay marriage” is that marriage is a right and that it is a violation of the rights of homosexuals not to allow them to marry. The argument generally goes that the state needs to ensure “marriage equality” and that “loving, consenting adults” should not be denied the right to marry.

I am very skeptical of this third approach. In my experience, those who take it are adamantly against polygamy and other alternative forms of unions, with the exception of same-sex unions. The reasons they give for this are entirely bogus. For example, they argue that polygamous relations would be complicated from a legal standpoint, they would involve “unequal” relations between men and women and would led to an imbalance in the ratio between men and women. Yet if marriage is a “right” there is no reason to deny someone there “rights” because it would be legally complicated. And who are they to impose their liberal values about gender equality on consenting men and women? Certainly many well-educated women don’t agree with them. They have no right to force their beliefs on gender equality on others. Also, if they are so interested in the ratio between men in women in society, they would probably be against same-sex marriages as well.

It is incredibly inconsistent and hypocritical for liberals to call for same-sex marriage on the basis of "marriage equality" and oppose polygamy or plural unions. It is also worth noting that liberals not only see homosexual behavior as normal and moral, but have repeatedly attempted to label those who question this idea as “bigots” who should be treated in a similar manner as racists are today. Because of their intolerance towards religious conservatives and inability to see that the views of religious conservatives on sexuality are rooted in their faith as opposed to “bigotry” or “hatred” the left is not to be trusted on this matter. They certainly cannot be trusted to respect the civil and religious liberties of those they dislike, especially religious conservatives. I suspect liberals want to use same-sex marriage as a tool to impose their values on homosexuality and gender on the rest of society. This means beating down any voices of dissent and using "gay marriage" to further legitimize homosexuality.

I fail to see how this is any different from the “intolerant fundamentalists” who make up the so-called “religious right” that liberals love to complain about and demonize. But liberals have make up their mind that homosexuality is a good thing and can’t seem to understand that reasonable people who aren’t motivated by hate or bigotry could possibly disagree with them. This is just another example of how parochial, narrow-minded, intolerant and self-righteous some liberals are. I expect that liberals will continue to attempt to push their approach on marriage on society in the next few decades. It is highly likely, however, that full or partial success on their part in the political arena, or more likely than not in the courts, will simply make the “culture wars” between liberals and conservatives more bitter and protracted than they already are today. Thus, I oppose this third approach and see it as the most dangerous to our society, republic and civil liberties. I don’t doubt for a minute that “gay marriage” as pushed by liberals could well lead to the curtailing of religious liberty, especially as religious conservatives would be labeled as “discriminating against gays” or as engaging in “hate speech” or some such nonsense. I don't put it past liberals to blatantly violate the First Amendment in the name of “gay rights.”

What then should be done? I believe the first approach I outline would be the best for society. It would also be helpful if orthodox churches and Christians took marriage much more seriously. This would mean more serious efforts to strengthen marriages and families and to fight divorce and the easy divorce culture we have today. Unfortunately, many Christians have come to accept divorce as normal. We wouldn’t be having any discussion about “gay marriage” if heterosexuals in general and Christian heterosexuals specifically haven't failed so badly in marriage these last 40-50 years. Part of facing the problem is for orthodox Christians to first look in the mirror and make changes of their own.

While the first approach is the best one, I am skeptical that it is politically, culturally or socially possible. As has been said, politics is the art of the possible, and true conservatives must be realistic about what can be accomplished through politics. If this is the case, the Libertarian approach is the best. Consequently, I grudgingly favor it. If the state isn’t going to impose the right values, it should seek to impose none at all, allow complete religious freedom on marriage and sexuality, and allow consenting adults to do whatever they want with their relationships and property. Unfortunately, I doubt many liberals or many conservatives for that matter would go for the Libertarian approach. This is why we are probably in for a knock down drag out over the definition of marriage and the state’s role in marriage in the coming years. The Libertarian approach would probably work best to defuse further "culture wars." However, speaking of realism in politics, defusing said wars may be too difficult from the outset, meaning a long cultural and political fight is in order.

None of this will be pretty, and although I won’t be surprised if we end up with “gay marriage” in all 50 states, there is no guarantee that the left will “win” or even if they do that legal victory will give liberals the results they ultimately desire, namely the normalization of homosexuality and "gay marriage." After all, legal victory could be a Pyrrhic victory. As an institution, civic marriage has been continued devalued since the 1960s and if and when the get it could end up as a worthless prize for gay activists. Also, there is no guarantee that “gay marriage” will even work or that gays won’t divorce at high rates. As with all the changes we have seen since the 1960s, the sure losers in all of this will be children. But hey, in our individualistic, selfish and materialistic culture, it’s the “happiness” of adults that really should matter, right? So who cares about them?

Marriage and the “gay marriage” debate: Part I Marriage and Children

America has been having a debate over marriage and “gay marriage” for a number of years now. No doubt this debate will continue for a number of years to come. However, to date, and the recent vote in Maine confirmed this, no state, including states that are hardly hotbeds of conservatism such as California and Maine have not approved “gay marriage” through a referendum. The states that do have it have almost always ended up with it through a court order. I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with court ordered “gay marriages” in all fifty states, though as with abortion this is likely to be a source of great controversy and division.

Of course, from the perspective of basic, orthodox Christianity there is no such thing as a “gay marriage.” While homosexuals should not be mistreated or treated without mercy or told there is no forgiveness for their sins, homosexual actions are sinful and the notion that people of the same sex can be married is a theological absurdity. Any attempts to say otherwise, which some liberals unconvincingly do, fly in the face of the clear teachings of Scripture. It should also be noted that Scripture also teaches against lust, adultery and fornication. And at best the Bible only allows divorce, and especially divorce and remarriage in very limited circumstances. Homosexual acts are sinful, but in our society heterosexuals, including many who are Christians or claim to be Christians, have engaged in plenty of sexual sin on their own. There is no use throwing too many stones at gays in a society that is a glass house so to speak.

Certainly the American Constitution allows for the free exercise of religion, which means that religious bodies have the right to define marriage within their communities however they wish. But our laws, including our marriage laws aren’t based on religion in general and Christianity specifically. So what should be the basis of state-sanctioned marriages? Why is the state in the marriage business in the first place? What interest does the state have in marriage?

First, it is worth pointing out that the state has never made “love” a condition of obtaining a marriage license. Of course most people who desire said licenses do claim to love each other and it is widely recognized that love and happiness is important for a married couple. At any rate, the state has no vested interest (and likely does not have the ability) in regulating people’s love lives or promoting romance within a relationship or making it a precondition for a marriage license. Adults will figure this out one way or the other on their own. On the other hand, the state has a great interest in the welfare of children. And numerous studies have shown that children are better off physically, psychologically, educationally, socially and economically when they are raised by two parents, particularly their biological parents. There are always exceptions to this, such as cases of extreme dysfunctional, neglect or abuse. But as a rule, children are better off with their parents. Studies show that children who grow up with both parents do better in school, are less likely to grow up in poverty, to engage in drug use, crime or risky sexual activities. As children are so vulnerable and are the future of the nation, it is only reasonable for the state to show some concern for their well-being.

With this in mind, the state has an interest in granting marriage licenses to consenting heterosexual couples who seek them. These marriage licenses entitle those who obtain them to special rights, privileges, and responsibilities. However, these aren’t given arbitrarily, but because biologically heterosexual couples are the ones who bring children into the world and are the best ones suited to raise them. Certainly, there are exceptions to this. Some heterosexual couples are infertile or too old to have children while others choose not to have any children at all. Nonetheless, all heterosexuals have the correct biologically equipment so to speak to have children and the vast majority of heterosexual couples who marry do in fact end up having children. In addition, the state doesn’t make laws based on exceptions, but on the general rule. For example, it is entirely reasonable for the state to require all automobile owners to have a valid drivers’ license and current auto insurance even if a few people who own cars park them in a garage and never take them on the road for use.

Homosexual couples are biologically different from heterosexual couples. In all cases, homosexual couples are biologically incapable of having children together. Sure, they can adopt children or one member of the couple can conceive a child through artificial means. But these methods all involve third parties, which make them different from the way most heterosexual couples have and raise children. As part of this, biologically speaking, children cannot have two fathers or two mothers. And children, even at a young age know this. Thus there is always something artificial or unnatural about a homosexual couple raising a child.

Remember that the state’s main interest with marriage should be as an institution to raise children. If this is the case, the state has no reason to extend marriage to homosexual couples. Homosexual relations are of no consequence to the state, which should approach them with as much indifference as it does the relationship between roommates, which are not eligible for any package of special privileges or rights. This isn’t because of religious objections to homosexuality. Rather, because of basic biology. Since the advent of no-fault divorce, however, the state and society in general have moved away from the idea that marriage is primarily an institution designed for the bearing and raising of children. Instead, the primary, if not nearly the exclusive focus has increasingly become the personal happiness of the couple. If marriage is mainly a “sentimental” matter and is a public confirmation that a couple loves each other and thus seeks to share property and benefits, what then should be the criteria for the state to grant marriage licenses? I will attempt to address this in my next post.

The debate over health care

The current health care debate is a real mess. I suspect that whatever plan the Democrats end up pushing through will cost much more than they claim. Moreover, it won't likely do much to solve many of the real problems in this nation with health care such as rising cost and lack of real choice for individuals. The Democrats may end up covering more people and eliminating some of the insurance industries more dubious use of things such as pre-existing conditions. However, their plans will likely raise premiums and reduce coverage for those who already have insurance. Worse yet, once they commit the federal government to what is in effect an entitlement expansion, there is little chance it will be cut back as entitlements rarely if ever are cut back. This means bigger government and a larger budget deficit-a very dangerous proposition for a government that already spends nearly 10% of its budget on the INTEREST of its debt.

As usual, the Republicans don't seem to have any genuine alternatives to this, though at least almost all Republicans in Congress won't support the Democrats. If I was in charge, here are some of the changes I would make:

1) Employment needs to be disconnected from health insurance. This is one of the biggest problems today and neither side seems to want to discuss it. Employers should stop offer health insurance and should simply pay workers more so they can go buy it for themselves on the free market. At the moment, one of the biggest problems is that health insurance companies can be jerks. But the insurance companies know good and well that people can't drop their health insurance as they could their auto insurance because they get it through their employer. If they dropped their employers' insurance, they would in affect be turning down hundreds of dollars each month in pay from their employer and would be forced to buy insurance at a higher rate on their own, something most people simply can't afford to do. The system we have now isn't capitalism. It is a quasi-monopolistic system. Real competition, which along with disconnecting employment with insurance coverage would also including allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines, would go a long way to changing things.

2) The federal government should allow everyone to have a tax-free health savings account as some companies currently have. Individuals should be allowed to contribute as much as they want each year and deduct it from their taxes. They should also be allowed to roll over what they don't use one year to their account for the next year (though for taxes they should only be allowed to deduct contributions made for each year). Individuals could use their savings accounts to purchase health insurance and pay for out of pocket expenses. This would give people a great deal of freedom to manage their own affairs.

3) Everyone should be required to purchase some form of "emergency" health insurance that covers things such as cancer or terrible accidents. It is outrageous that people go bankrupt in this country because of medical bills. There really should be insurance to prevent this. Those who are too poor to pay for this should be given a subside to buy their own insurance or receive it through Medicare or Medcaid.

4) The way we pay doctors needs to change. At the moment, they are paid for all the tests and procedures they do. This needs to be changed to how things work in other countries such as Britain where doctors are paid (and even given bonuses) for results, i.e. getting patients well instead of for procedures. Doctors should be well compensated. But they need to be paid for results, not simply having expensive tests and procedures done.

5) We need to stress wellness and prevention more. Is it any wonder that we have such high health care expenses in this country with our obesity rates and the poor diet and exercise that causes obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.?

Much of the above is similar to the system in Switzerland, which is cheaper, has universal coverage and gives individuals more choice over their health decisions than is currently the case in America with health insurance companies and their quasi-monopolistic practices or if the government took more control over the health care system, especially if we went to a single payer system. Americans don't like answering to a health insurance bureaucrat. But answering to a government bureaucrat wouldn't be any better. The choices we have in America between the left and right today are false choices.

I believe many of the above ideas make sense. Which of course is why they probably won't be adopted.

Back again, I hope

It's obvious that I haven't posted on this blog in quite so time. I hope to begin posting again more regularly now. Still, it is my blog, so I will post as infrequently or as infrequently as I see fit.

Why the global warning debate doesn't matter

In recent years the media has discussed global warming quite a bit. It has become an important issue for the left, which holds that the “carbon footprint” that humans are leaving on this planet could well melt the icecaps, cause the oceans to rise, and totally disrupt life on earth as we know it. Many on the right on the other hand sees this as fear-mongering and believes that global warning is a hoax concocted by blowhards such as Al Gore. Further, the right views government efforts to reduce greenhouse gases will cost businesses billions and hamstring the American economy. Obviously, both sides have ideological reasons for their positions and those on the extreme left and the extreme right can be pretty dogmatic about this issue.

It appears that many scientists do believe that global warming is caused by human activity. But it also seems that a substantial and perhaps even growing number of scientists dispute this claim. The global warming debate seems important. Certainly the potential consequences of getting this issue wrong either way are pretty bad. In the end, however, I just don’t think this debate is all that important. Why not? Mainly because I don’t think people are going to change their ways all that much, especially Americans. I heard not too long ago on NPR that as individuals liberals don’t act any differently than conservatives when it comes to the environment. That seems about right from my personal experiences. I’ve definitely known liberal colleagues who drive more and drive less fuel efficient vehicles than do I.

As a nation, we may well adopt lifestyles that consume less fossil fuels in general and oil specifically. But this will be due to market forces, namely the rising cost of oil and other fuel. Of course, it would also improve our long-term national security if we moved away from oil as well. One thing is for sure, we aren’t about to give up our cars, electricity, and other modern conveniences, especially for something as abstract to the average person as global warming.
Industry and agriculture, which is also heavily dependent on fuel isn’t about to do this either. The vast majority of Americans aren’t remotely interested in living more like the Amish. We prize the conveniences of our live above almost everything else. This attitude isn't a good thing and is also why things such as abortion are so difficult to fight. Abortion is the taking of innocent human life and is a monstrous evil. Sadly, for many Americans it is a convenience that helps give them the “freedom” to live materialistic and sexually unethical lifestyles.

Americans aren’t about to give up their cars and other gadgets. If the government tries to reduce carbon emissions in a manner that hinders access to these modern conveniences, it will face an outcry from the public. I’m not a scientist, so I can’t say much about the science of climate change one way or the other. But I hope anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax. If it isn’t, we’re screwed because there is no way that Americans, much less the rest of the world will every change their lives in a way that would stop it. That in the end is why the debate over global warming just doesn’t matter. It’s a lot of talk on an issue where apart from market forces and technological innovation we just aren’t going to make in substantial changes.

Is Christianity really declining in America?

A recent study and recent articles have suggested that Christianity in general and Evangelicalism specifically are in decline in America and that America will likely experience significant “secularization” in the next twenty years. First, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) released a poll that showed that almost all Christian denominations have lost ground since 1990. For example, among the two largest Christian groups, Catholics went from 26.2% to 25.1% of the population while Baptists went from 19.3% to 15.8% of the population. The number of Americans who listed “none” however, has grown from 8% in 1990 to 15% in 2008. For a more complete breakdown of these numbers see “USA Today’s” article on this at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm

In addition to this report, noted Evangelical blogger Michael Spencer who blogs under the site “Internet Monk” has published an article in “The Christian Science Monitor” called “The Coming Evangelical Collapse.” Spencer predicts that Evangelicalism will decline significantly in the coming decades and that America will become more secularized. He has a host of articles discussing this on his website as well. For more information see the following links:

Michael Spencer “The Coming Evangelical Collapse”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

Spencer’s more extensive original blog posts on this issue:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-original-coming-evangelical-collapse-posts

Michael Bell’s “The Coming Evangelical Collapse: A statistical review, part I and part II”

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-coming-evangelical-collapse-a-statistical-review-by-michael-bell

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-evangelical-collapse-a-statistical-analysis-part-ii-by-michael-bell

So what are we to make of this? Is Christianity in general and Evangelicalism specifically on the decline? First, I believe it is difficult to accurately measure faith. We can, however, make some generalizations on the basis of polls that measure religious affiliation, basic beliefs, and church attendance. If one looks at the findings of George Barna, the vast majority of Americans don’t have, and probably haven’t had in years (if ever), a “biblical worldview” or a belief system that corresponds to basic, orthodox Christianity. Barna’s numbers strike me as a bit too pessimistic at times. Nonetheless, I think his findings are generally correct. The majority of Americans simply aren’t and probably weren’t orthodox Christians. For more information on Barna’s data, see for example:

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/21-transformation/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years

Another way to examine this situation is to examine the numbers on church attendance. Presumably, most people who are committed to their faith attend church on a weekly or regular basis. The statistics for church attendance in America vary considerably from about 20% to 45% of the population. Those who believe it is around 20% or so tend to look at actually head counts of attendance. Those who see it as higher such as Gallup and Barna use self-reporting, i.e. they simply poll people if they attend church regularly. In my view, the 45% is a bit high, though 20% probably is too low as it doesn’t count people on any given Sunday who are believers and aren’t in church because of an illness, work, travel, vacation, family obligations, weather, transportation problems, etc. One might also add some people who really are believers but have for whatever reasons (hopefully temporary ones) become disenchanted with church and aren’t currently attending a church. The interesting thing is that church attendance in America peaked at near 50% in the 1950s, declined shortly thereafter and has remained fairly stable in the 40s and high 30s in many polls since then. For a full discussion on the various numbers of church attendance, see this blog post:

http://missionalchurchnetwork.blogspot.com/2008/11/weekly-usa-church-attendance.html

So what does that mean? Is Christianity really declining? Is our society become more “secular”? Is it going down the same road that Europe has traveled? I’m not entirely sure this is the case. First, even in the 1950s something like 50% or more of people in America didn't attend church on a regular basis. In all likelihood, most of these people were nominal or cultural Christians who reported they were Christian because it was considered socially acceptable. Yet they rarely if ever darkened the door of the church, probably didn’t have a deep faith in Christ, if any at all, didn’t know much about the central tenants of the Christianity, and certainly didn’t live their lives on the basis of any “biblical worldview.”

The problem with this whole recent "decline of Christianity" and "secularization" narrative is that it assumes that more Americans were Christian in the past that probably were in reality. What we may be seeing today isn't so much "secularization" or "decline" of Christianity, but the erosion of cultural Christianity. I wouldn't be surprised if many if not most of the 15% of Americans who now list "none" under their religious affiliation would have been nominal or cultural Christians from the 1950s until say 2000. Since I haven’t seen any numbers pointing to a serious drop in church attendance, what may well be happening is that people who are nominal or cultural Christians are no longer checking the "Christian" box in surveys and check "none" instead.

Perhaps people today are simply a bit more honest about their faith or lack thereof. I would say that the ARIS’ number of 15% of Americans as “none” is too low itself. Certainly the number of hardcore atheists and even agnostics is fairly low. But the number of people in America who aren’t really Christian and don’t belong to any religion whatsoever is without a doubt higher than 15%

We may well be seeing the beginnings of decline for Christianity in America. Nevertheless, the current data only gives us a snapshot of what is going on. Until I see numbers that show a real drop off in church attendance, my guess is what we are really seeing is a decline of cultural Christianity. This decline could be permanent or it could be temporary. At the moment, I would attribute it to three things. First, the political polarization of the Bush years and the identification of conservative Christianity in general and Evangelicalism specifically with Bush. Second, the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. Third, the continued and bitter disagreement over issues arising from the sexual revolution (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). For my views on the third issue, see my recent post on this blog entitled “America in 1965: Religion, sex and what the secular left’s ‘theocrat’ charge misses.”

In my view, the first two issues are temporary. Americans have a short memory. I have a hard time believing these, especially the association of Bush with conservative Christians, will have a long-term impact on Christianity in America. Finally, some young people may be turning away from church. Many of them are disgusted with Bush and are infatuated with Obama. But historically young people attend church in lower numbers than the rest of the population. They often come back to church when they get married and have children. And today's young people who hate Bush may hate the Democrats 10 years from now because of crushing taxes, debt, and entitlement (Social Security, Medicare) expenses that will certainly fall on their backs. Remember the baby boomers turning away from church and the whole "Death of God" discussion in the late 1960s? Numerous commentators then believed Christianity was on the verge of a huge collapse and that young people were leaving the church in droves. That in fact did occur for mainline Protestant churches. But things weren’t near as dramatic for Christianity as a whole.

It is possible that we will see a real decline of Christianity in the next twenty years. But it is really too early to say. I do think we can say that cultural Christianity is waning. The gap between the world and the church is certainly growing starker in America. This is especially the case as the gulf between the sexual ethics of non-religious people and orthodox Christians that first opened in a major way in the late 1960s continues to widen. Truly, our country has no common sexual ethics, which is why we have the “culture wars.” Still, I'd be hesitant to draw too many firm conclusions one way or the other about “decline” and “secularization” right now.

Maybe God is busy clearing out some of the deadwood and underbrush of "cultural Christianity" that is in our culture. Come what may we Christians should love others, seek to live humble and holy lives, make the Gospel known to others, and above all cling to our faith in the incarnate and risen Christ. In the end, St. Patrick’s ancient prayer is as relevant today as it was over 1,000 years ago.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Below is the real reason to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day.

The Prayer of St. Patrick or “Breastplate” of St. Patrick

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through the belief in the threeness,
Through the confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation.

I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with his baptism,
Through the strength of his crucifixion with his burial,
Through the strength of his resurrection with his ascension,
Through the strength of his descent for the Judgment Day.

I arise today
Through the strength of the love of Cherubim,
In obedience of angels,
In the service of archangels,
In hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In prayers of patriarchs,
In predictions of prophets,
In preaching of apostles,
In faith of confessors,
In innocence of holy virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.

I arise today
Through the strength of heaven:
Light of sun,
Radiance of moon,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of wind,
Depth of sea,
Stability of earth,
Firmness of rock.

I arise today
Through God's strength to pilot me:
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's way to lie before me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of demons,
From temptations of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone and in multitude.

I summon today all these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul.
Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me abundance of reward.

Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit down, Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness,
Of the Creator of Creation.

America in 1965: Religion, sex and what the secular left’s ‘theocrat’ charge misses

It has become commonplace in recent years for those on the left, especially those who are non-religious to accuse traditional religious people of attempting to impose their religious views on the rest of society. This is particular the case on matters related to sexuality such as abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, abstinence only sex-education and so forth. Some of the more extreme voices on the left have resorted to labeling orthodox religious believers who voice their opinion on this issues in the public square “theocrats” or “Christianists” who seek to “roll back the clock” and put “fundamentalists” (a much abused and loosely used term) in charge of the government. Several liberal authors published books that made this argument during the presidency of George W. Bush. While the election of Obama has calmed down many liberals, this narrative remains dominant on the left and will likely remain so for years to come.

For orthodox Christians such as myself who are actually familiar with traditional Christian churches, the “theocrat” charge is clearly exaggerated. It seems more indicative of fear and an ignorance of religion on the left than the aspirations of orthodox Christians. Clearly there are those in the so-called “religious right” who have said and done some foolish things. And conservative Christians have often uncritically supported the Republican party, which in turn has done little for them. The ‘theocrat’ charge, however, is completely overblown and unfair. It only serves to automatically discredit one party and shut down discussion before it starts. But that may be the point anyway.

So what is the secular left missing in all this? To explain this, it is worth remembering what America was like in 1965. Why 1965? Because the United States in 1965 was a very different nation. Yet it was on the cusp on a number of social, cultural, and economic changes that shape contemporary American society today, especially its politics. By the end of 1965, president Johnson’s signature of the Civil Rights Act and Voters Right Act had ensured that Jim Crow segregation was on its deathbed. Johnson was also in the process of expanding the federal government with his “Great Society” programs and getting the nation knee-deep into Vietnam.
America in 1965 was still a nation with a strong industrial base. Computers were unknown in the workplace and had little impact on the way most business operated and the way most people lived. America was not dependent on foreign oil. The big three dominated the automobile industry and Japanese imports were not popular. Immigrants from Asia and Latin America were largely unknown. Far fewer Americans lived what is called “the sunbelt” today. Of course, all of this was about to change.

The same was true of American culture. In terms of religion, mainline Protestant churches were at the height of their influence. As the election of president Kennedy seemed to have shown, Catholics and Jews were largely accepted as part of the religious mainstream. Evangelicals and especially fundamentalists as well as agnostics and atheists were considered outside the mainstream. Nonetheless, only around 40% of the population attended religious services on a weekly basis and much of the population was only nominally religious. Religion, however, was generally seen as a good thing by most of society. America in 1965 had not yet experienced the counter-culture movement or the feminist movement. It had also not experienced the sexual revolution of the late 1960s and 1970s. Clearly the seeds of feminism and the sexual revolution were present in 1965. Alfred Kinsey’s ideas were far from unknown in academic circles, the FDA had approved the birth control pill, “Playboy” magazine was beginning to take off, and feminist icon Betty Friedan’s book “The Feminine Mystique” had been published.

In 1965, abortion was illegal to one degree or the other in every state in the Union. No fault divorce as unknown. Premarital sex was frowned upon as was having children outside of marriage. A couple who lived together before they were married would have been considered scandalous. Pornography was not common and was widely seen as immoral. Homosexual behavior was seen as immoral, unnatural, and psychologically abnormal. The idea of “gay marriage” was completely unknown and would have certainly been seen as utterly absurd. People who were religious, nominally religious and non-religious generally shared these attitudes. America was no utopia in the 1950s and early 1960s. But Americans of various political and religious persuasions shared a common set of ethical values with respect to human sexuality in 1965.

Your average atheist, agnostic, nominal religious person, or ‘progressive’ religious person in 1965 quite likely wouldn’t have supported the abortion laws we have today. They most likely wouldn’t have seen homosexual behavior as normal and won’t have dreamed of supporting “gay marriage.” For “gay marriage,” the same would be true in 1985 and in many cases in 1995. For Gen Xers and especially for Baby Boomers, all of this was well within their lifetimes. So were agnostics and atheists (say Ayn Rand) in 1965 and even beyond ‘theocrats’? Of course not. This is precisely why the ‘theocrat’ charge is so misplaced. It utterly lacks perspective and fails to acknowledge that the left has experienced sea changes with respect to how it sees human sexuality and sexual ethics .

The “culture wars” that we have experienced for so many years aren’t a result of “fundamentalist Christians” seeking to “impose a theocracy” on the rest of America. They have taken place because the left changed its beliefs so radically and much of the rest of American society, especially traditional religious believers did not. Traditional believers had this fight thrust upon them. They didn’t start it. In short, if we have a “culture war” it is one that the left started and continues to wage, all while propagating the myth that it is the other way around. There simply is no major effort to impose a “theocracy” on America. In fact, take away major issues associated with differences that have arisen over sexuality such abortion, gay rights, pornography, no fault divorce, permissive sex education programs, and the social acceptance of cohabitation and out of wedlock birth and the “religious right” would disappear over night. In other words, if you want to end the “culture wars” and bring American society to a point when there was a broad consensus on sexual ethics between almost all members of society, liberals and conservatives, religious, nominally religious, and non-religious, then take us back to the "status quo ante bellum." Take us back to 1965.

So what should the Republicans propose? Some suggestions

So if the Republicans weren’t nearly worthless and had any credibility, and if they had any ideas worthy of offering the public, what might they propose as an alternative to what the Democrats are currently doing? The Republicans should actually propose real conservative ideas, though tough economic times do require some ideological flexibility. It’s easy to be negative and sit back and criticize the Democrats. The Democrats did this for years with Bush. It didn’t help them any and made them appear as simply a bunch of nay-sayers. Some of their criticism of Bush were correct. But they didn’t go anywhere because they went over the top at times, came off as bitter and hateful, and above all didn’t have any new ideas or alternatives to offer. The Republicans need to avoid this and while in the opposition should offer a real alternative instead of just complaints. I would offer the following general suggestions:

1. Cut the size of the federal government, especially unnecessary programs.
2. Cut back our defense budget by reigning in our commitments abroad. We have no need of an Empire and it will bankrupt us in the long run.
3. We need to avoid too much government debt and inflation via printing money. There is a real possibility that some of the policies currently being pursued could weaken or even destroy the value of the dollar, which would be a disaster.
4. We need to do something about illegal immigration, the loss of industry, and our dependence on foreign imports. While there is nothing wrong with a service based economy per se, our fundamentals do not seem solid for the long term.
5. Something needs to be done to prevent entitlement programs from eating the federal government’s budget alive in the future. Some real entitlement reform needs to be discussed.
6. Some temporary government spending on infrastructure (roads, bridges, the power grid) might not be such a bad thing. Investments in alternative energy that would help free our dependence on oil would be especially worthy of government spending. After all, in the long run our current energy situation is both an economic and security problem that needs to be addressed.
7. We should have across the board tax cuts, but especially on the middle class and small businesses. These would stimulate spending and create jobs.
8. The public loathes the idea of government bailouts because they seem to reward greed and reckless incompetence. Bailouts should only be a last resort to prevent a recession from turning into another Depression. When at all possible, the market should be allowed to take care of itself. Some people who bought too much house should have their homes foreclosed on. Some banks that made reckless loans should go under. But we shouldn’t stick to free market principals to the point that it plunges us into a Depression.
9. What about companies who took bailouts? If a bank or company takes government money, there should be some serious strings attached. For example, the CEOs who made the poor decisions that put them in such dire straits should have to forfeit all the big bonuses they were awarded for the bogus “profits” they made their company in the form of back taxes and penalties. Bailouts should mean their golden parachutes get turned into lead. If said corporate leaders get fired, go bankrupt, lose everything they own, or even go to jail, too bad. This would send a clear message to the corporate world about what happens to people who take such reckless actions. It would also play well with the public who hates the idea of those responsible for this mess being rewarded i.e. “bailed out” for their stupidity.
10. It is clear that the banking industry needs to be regulated more. The government especially needs to zero in on preventing fraudulent lending the future.
11. Finally, we don’t need to lose focus that many individuals, banks, and corporations in America did not act recklessly. Regulations and taxes should not be allowed to hurt those who did not act foolishly. They already have to pick up the tab as taxpayers, so why should they be hurt twice for things they are not responsible for? Truth be told, the government should try and ensure conditions in which responsible people, banks, and corporations can take advantage of the stupidity of others in the market.

I don’t pretend to have all of the answers. And I freely admit that some of these ideas are vague at even possibly at cross-purposes. But I do think that in general if the Republicans sought to return to a more authentic form of conservatism and offered alternate proposals that were based on a mix of fiscal conservatism, pragmatism, and basic fairness that they might get a hearing with the public. They might actually contribute to what the government does and help us recovery as a nation and the Republican party as a credible party. With the party’s current group of leaders and commentators, however, I’m not holding my breath.

Republicans and the stimulus package: A lack of credibility

Daniel Larison has an interest post over at his blog "Eunomia" on the current Republican party and the economy. It is worth reading, so I've posted it below:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/03/07/look-on-the-bright-side

"It seems to me that implicit in a lot of conservative criticism of the stimulus bill, the mortgage plan, and Obama’s cap-and-trade scheme, among other things, must be the odd notion that things would have been very different had McCain won the election. While we can be sure that McCain the crazed earmark-hunter would still be with us (no doubt keeping us safe from volcano monitoring and gang tatoo removal), let us recall that McCain supported cap-and-trade (even if he didn’t necessarily understand what he was talking about when he said so), proposed an insane mortgage bailout plan that pretty much everyone hated, backed TARP and differed from Obama on taxes largely in that he refused to raise any rates. In the end, the main difference turns out to be a disagreement about whether to return the top rate to its Clinton-era level or not. I guess that is a bit more than a dime’s worth of difference, but it isn’t much. Of course, this is why so many Republicans were relieved that McCain lost, because had he won they would have ended up backing a whole host of policies that they are currently denouncing as disastrous. At the same time, we would have had an old, irritable President prone to fits of bellicosity in international affairs and moral grandstanding about any issue he doesn’t understand, and behind him would have been an unqualified VP. However bad things are, remember that they could have been far, far worse."

As Larison notes, as much as the Republicans (rightly in many cases) complain about the stimulus package, it is doubtful that a president McCain would do things much differently if he were in office instead of Obama. Perhaps more importantly, the Republicans don't really have a lot of room to talk after all the problems of the Bush years. Bush and the Republicans in Congress wastefully spent money on pork barrel projects. They spent money like drunken sailors and increased both the size of government and the national debt. Moreover, they got us into the war in Iraq, which has turned out to be an unnecessary disaster that has cost tens of thousands of American and Iraqi lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. Congressional Republicans were also involved in a number of scandals. And last but not least, the Bush administration played fast and loose with civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

In short, the Republicans did not act as real conservatives in the first place and certainly were not responsibly with power and money. Unfortunately, so far they don't seem to have learned much from their mistakes during the Bush years. Granted, it hasn't been all that long since the November election. But there has been no indication that "mainstream" Republicans have even began to question the disastrous and fundamentally unconservative radicalism of the neocons. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are still widely seen as authentic spokesmen of conservatism. The rank and file of the Republican party haven't exactly turned to Ron Paul for leadership or to paleoconservative publications such as "The American Conservative" or "Chronicles" for new ideas. I wish I could say there is a chance of this happening in the coming years, but I doubt it.

I suspect that the stimulus package may do more harm than good. It appears to have some good aspects, but will certainly increase the size of the national debt and government all while quite possibly doing little to kick start the economy. Politically, the problem is that the Republicans don't have any new ideas and consequently aren't able to present much of an alternative to what Obama and the Democrats in Congress are doing. Not only are the Republicans intellectually exhausted, but they have very little credibility in the eyes of the public. As skeptical as I am about the stimulus package, Republican (and I include talking heads such as Limbaugh and Hannity here) attacks on the stimulus package look a lot like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm sure the same is the case with much of the public as well. The Republicans are going to have to wander in the wilderness for several years. After the follies of the Bush years, they deserve it, though unfortunately in the meantime Obama and especially Congressional Democrats may do damage of their own to our country and economy.

The "stimulus package" passed

Well, the "stimulus package" passed (or rather was hastily rammed through) both houses of Congress. My impression is that neither the Congress nor the president actually has any idea how to turn the economy around. The "stimulus plan" is largely massive pork barrel spending that in many cases only stimulates Democratic special interests. This is quite similar to the neocons who wanted to invade Iraq for years and were able to use 9/11 as a justification. Now we just have liberal Democrats who are using the recession as a excuse to spend nearly a trillion on the wish list they accumulated in their years out of power. This whole thing is driven by left-wing ideology, just as neocon ideology drove the invasion of Iraq.

There may not be any real way for the government to turn it around. We may simply need to take our lumps and ride this thing out. Both reckless banks and people who took on an absurd amount of debt for things such as homes and cars the couldn't really afford, credit card purchases, and excess student loans got us in this mess. But it looks like those of us who have acted responsibly will end up bailing them out.

I have my doubts that the "stimulus plan" will do all that much to improve the economy. One thing is for sure, it will greatly add to the national debt, will increase the size of government, and may well lead to serious inflation. It's going to be an interesting ride ahead.

The "stimulus" plan

The current "stimulus" plan moving its way through Congress strikes me as more pork than actually stimulus. I suppose it shouldn't be much of a surprise that all kinds of things are being attached to this massive level of spending. After all, if we are going to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars, what's a few more billion here and there to a Congressman eager to pass some pet project?

It looks as if the Democrats just plan on spending money left and right on things they favor. Nevermind that many of these things aren't remotely related to stimulating the economy and getting us out of this recession. To their credit, with Bush gone the Republicans in Congress appear to have developed a spine when it comes to resisting foolish and unnecessary spending. They do have a reasonable alternative plan that consist of taxes cuts for individuals and businesses as well as modest cuts in government spending. I'd like something more radical than that, but it's a start.

The problem is that not only are the Republicans in the minority, but after six years (2001-2007) of wasteful spending by a Republican controlled Congress and after eight years (2001-2009) of wasteful spending and a whole host of other bad decisions on President Bush's part, the Republicans simply don't have much credibility. Obama is in his honeymoon phase with the public, so with his high approval rating will get much of what he wants. Unfortunately, that means clowns like Pelosi and Reid will get much of what they want as well.

What does all this mean? It means that people won't start listening to the more reasonable ideas the Republicans are currently floating until a few years later. By that time, we'll likely be in even greater debt than we are now and all that "stimulus" may not have done much of anything to help the economy.

Let's remove "In God We Trust" from our currency

Another new year is upon us again. Unfortunately, it appears that 2009 will be a doosie of a year. The economy is almost sure to get worse before it gets any better. This means that unemployment and foreclosures will rise. That in turn will translate to hard times for millions of Americans who lose their jobs and homes. And it probably won’t be any better in many other parts of the world.

The reasons for our economic problems are quite obvious. Beneath the surface of years of economic prosperity in the recent past lay greed, false expectations, excessive debt, living well beyond means, lack of accountability, and massive fraud. This occurred on all levels, from corporations and large financial institutions, to the government, to ordinary consumers. The chickens finally came home to roost in 2008. As a result, events in 2009 and possibly even 2010 or longer will in essence function as the hangover for years of partying. The sad part is that some people who had little to do with all this excess will suffer, while some at the top who played key roles in what happened will get away with what they did and indeed will remain wealthy.

What is to be done about all this? The American government should start by striking “In God We Trust” from all new currency. It’s pretty clear that many Americans don’t trust in God, or at least not the God that Christians worship. From what has transpired recently, one might conclude that the God of many Americans is Mammon. Instead of “In God We Trust” our currency should feature the phrase “For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.” It’s not that money and wealth are evil per se. But the Bible is clear about the consequences of greed and of making money ones God. Recent experiences have only confirmed that. If Americans want to avoid another catastrophe such as the one we have on our hands now, they would do well to ponder this truth. It would be fitting if what is written on the very money they handle might cause them to do just that.