Atheists More Irrational than Religious in U.S.A.

[bodhisagan]

But why did crime rates soar in the first place (because before the 60’s crime rates were low)?

."

Hi all. I’d like to weigh in on this one a little. Clearly the 60s brought about a lot of cultural upheaval. We have also had a lot of issues with “the family” etc. since then. However, it is my opinion that these things are wrongly 1) framed moralistically; treating the “new” culture as a whole instead of as parts and 2) comparing the 60s only to the two or three preceding decades and only in the US. Many of the conclusions that people come to are valid, but there are too many assumptions and there is too much isolation (argument from within a silo just here in the US etc.) Also little is asked of the validity of old statistics in light of the under reporting of various kinds of “taboo” crimes before the sexual revolution and lack of the infrastructure “back in the day” that actually looked at these things.

I would like to simply lay out a few random thoughts on the topic below.

1. " The divorce rate" - I would argue that this has gone up more due to higher expectations among women, a greater voice for women (i.e. I don’t have to take this from you) and the two income dilemma than some kind of devaluation of marriage. Consumerism (money is a frequent cause of divorce) and mobility (thus people can start a new life without their spouse) have also contributed. Divorce is terrible to families, but I wouldn’t take away the progress women have made in the last 4 decades to fix it. Eliminate consumerism, de-romanticize marriage and one might find this issue is licked without going back to the “good ole days” looking for solutions.
2. The" it was better way back when issue - and then we look at statistics from the 50’s to compare to today". A lot of demographic data would suggest that things haven’t always been so good in the past. Some argue that the cultural stability of that time (the fifties) was an anomaly in itself and should not be used to compare to today. I wish I still had my sources, but I spent a long time researching some of these demographic stats such as premarital pregnancy rates, marriage rates etc. back to the early modern period in which as much as a third of the new brides had a bun in the oven on their wedding day in the 17th century etc… Unwed mothers, unconventional families and the like were very common during the heady days of the Industrial Revolution as well.

Rape stats too are almost meaningless in context of the under-reporting done before rape was “outed” for what it is violent crime. Even after looking at things objectively and filtering out bad or uncertain data I will concede that some things are still worse than they were. However, do we have to condemn the whole of the cultural revolution or can we say that perhaps we can pin most of the issues on one thing, drugs and the government’s response to that problem (meaning the incarceration rate)?

1. “The problems we have since the 60s are due to the cultural/sexual revolution…just look at how bad things are (or have been)” - This is mostly only true in the US. In countries where this revolution was embraced even more than in the US, at least in parts, they don’t have the crime etc. we do. Look to the EU and one sees a godless, yet relatively stable society. Looking at the US in a vacuum clouds things and begs the question “what is different between us and them?”. If they are even less “moral” than us, why do they seem to have “figured it out” (BTW I’m a practicing Catholic…GK of my local KofC council - not advocating Godlessness). Might it be the almighty dollar?
2. “The way to fix it is to undo what was done in the 60s”- Let’s face it, that’s not going to happen. The other issue is, what do we keep and what don’t we keep and who decides? Clearly drugs and open promiscuity were bad and can be blamed for much that has gone wrong in the last several decades. I don’t think many really deny this. Mistakes were made by the boomers as they emerged and changed our culture and I think many of these mistakes are being slowly undone. I don’t think we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Things are much better now or potentially much better now for minorities (not just racial but religious and sexual as well as unwed mothers etc.) for women (technically not minorities), the handicapped (physically and mentally) and for anyone who would have been on the fringes of society in the past. Consumerism (one of Pope Benedict’s and Pope JP2’s pet peeves) and resurgent poverty among working people account for a lot of today’s ills.

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I’m writing this as I work, so if it looks like a brain dump, it pretty much is. I also am terribly sorry it is so long and no less sorry that this is a major diversion from the original post. More than anything this is a pet peeve because it distracts from meaningful dialog about today’s issues and how to fix them. Clearly we are in a rapidly changing time with social issues galore. Framing these issues in the context of a decaying society which has turned its back on its values and thus reaped what it deserves allows people to ignore the issues at hand and blame others for our problems. I submit that consumerism, economic upheaval and lack of community in a mobile society can account for much of our issues today and that God is not smiting our secular (are we really all that secular?) society, as my parish priest suggests.

 

[KathleenGee]

Our country in the USA is totally fractured because one side wants to back to restore traditional values as what is best for society, but without the judgmentalness and marginalization of those who did make mistakes…

Versus the secular/liberal forces who consider themselves non-judgmental and are oblivious to the injustice as well that exists in welfare classes who exploit our people’'s generosity. It is coming out people on welfare are better supported by the state than families who have work.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I submit that consumerism, economic upheaval and lack of community in a mobile society can account for much of our issues today and that God is not smiting our secular (are we really all that secular?) society, as my parish priest suggests.

Thanks bodhisagan for a very informative post. I don’t think it a diversion whatsoever and it made me think. I submit that, though of course everything in the fifties and back may be idolized by “traditionalists” inordinately, I submit that NO: our society in terms of morality has descended in kind and not of degree to what was before. Of course, domestic abuse and the other pertinent points you mentioned were under-reported and one should banish wishful thinking about past glory. There were major societal problems, but not of the kind we have today since God was pronounced dead in the sixties. I believe even FDR back in his day even thanked God that the problems being dealt in the 30s were “only” of a materialistic nature and, thankfully, not spiritual problems. We have both today.

Just take a look at Hollywood culture, violence, videogames, “grindhouse” movies where human butchery becomes humor. Look at the recent VMA awards and how those idolized by our youth behave. Each new film Hollywood pushes out always seeks to “push the limits”. At the rate it’s going with every passing decade and coarsening of culture, movies and music will keep on a downward descent until some crisis finally wakes everyone up.

I believe the answer to consumerism and the other problems you listed is Christianity, specifically Catholicism which is immune to the fast-growing unfounded “Prosperity Gospel”. Catholicism sets man up to lay treasure in Heaven rightfully which surely is proper in regards to combating instant self-gratification and consumerism and materialism. You rightly complain that one should not study the U.S. alone but I will submit that the best treatise ever written on the nature of Democracy in America was by a Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville back in 1840. Most political philosophers still marvel at his perceptiveness and acuity. De Tocqueville wrote:

…men cannot do without dogmatic belief, and it is much desired that such belief should exist among them. I now add, that of all kinds of dogmatic belief, the most desirable appears to me to be dogmatic belief in matters of religion; and this is a clear inference, even from no higher consideration than the interests of this world. Men are immeasurably interested in acquiring fixed ideas of God, of the soul, and of their general duties to their Creator and their fellow men; for doubt on these first principles would abandon all their actions to chance and would condemn them in some way to disorder and impotence.
When the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the higher powers of the intellect and half paralyzes all others. Every man accustoms himself to having only confused and changing notions on the subjects most interesting to his fellow creatures and himself. His opinions are ill-defended and easily abandoned; and, in despair of ever solving by himself the hard problems respecting the destiny of man, he ignobly submits to think no more about them.
It must be acknowledged that equality, which brings great benefits into the world, nevertheless suggests to men some very dangerous propensities. It tends to isolate them from one another, to concentrate every man’s attention upon himself; and it lays open the soul to an inordinate love of material gratification. The greatest advantage of religion is to inspire diametrically contrary principles. There is no religion that does not place the object of man’s desires above and beyond the treasures of earth and that does not naturally raise his soul to regions far above those senses. Nor is there any which does not impose on man some duties towards his kind and thus draw him at times from contemplation of himself.
Religious nations are therefore naturally strong on the very point on which democratic nations are weak; this shows of what importance it is for men to preserve their religion as their conditions become more equal. (de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume II, First Book, Chapter V)

This was Tocqueville’s prescription for the future success of American democracy, to hold onto Religion tightly to fight the corrupting effects of society. It still holds true today almost 200 years later. And I am not American. God Bless, Andrew

p.s. I think I wanted to comment on another point of yours below

 

[KyivAndrew]

1. “The problems we have since the 60s are due to the cultural/sexual revolution…just look at how bad things are (or have been)” - This is mostly only true in the US. In countries where this revolution was embraced even more than in the US, at least in parts, they don’t have the crime etc. we do. Look to the EU and one sees a godless, yet relatively stable society. Looking at the US in a vacuum clouds things and begs the question “what is different between us and them?”. If they are even less “moral” than us, why do they seem to have “figured it out”

I would wager that they haven’t “figured it out” whatsoever. European nations are not sure how to deal with their growing Muslim populations, their demographics point to vanishing nations because Europeans are not having kids (what Europe in 50 years?), and the EU would not even be standing today but its countries would have long ago fell under the Soviet Union had not the U.S. successfully and selflessly instituted the Marshall Plan and N.A.T.O. after WWII. One only has to go back 60 years in history to recall that France, Italy, Greece - all were in horrendous shape after the War and there was a real chance of them becoming communist, had it not been for the U.S. This needs to be stressed.

Also, the European countries were just as susceptible to civic unrest as the U.S.A. in the 1960s and beyond. I was too young to witness it, but in 1968 France’s Republic almost collapsed full-stop when students and Marxists took to the streets with violence for no other reason than gratifying an adolescent, puerile, anarchistic and nihilistic hunger. France almost imploded. America had trouble for sure, but not to the extent of facing a complete collapse of society to the degree France did in '68 I would argue. Then there are the Red Brigades in Italy, the Baader Meinhof Gang in Germany which fell in love with the pistol and blood and wreaked havoc on society.

The picture was not and is not all that rosy vis-a-vis the U.S. and the Europeans have not got anything more figured out than the Americans, IMHO.

 

[josie_L]

Hi all. I’d like to weigh in on this one a little. Clearly the 60s brought about a lot of cultural upheaval. We have also had a lot of issues with “the family” etc. since then. However, it is my opinion that these things are wrongly 1) framed moralistically; treating the “new” culture as a whole instead of as parts and 2) comparing the 60s only to the two or three preceding decades and only in the US. Many of the conclusions that people come to are valid, but there are too many assumptions and there is too much isolation (argument from within a silo just here in the US etc.) Also little is asked of the validity of old statistics in light of the under reporting of various kinds of “taboo” crimes before the sexual revolution and lack of the infrastructure “back in the day” that actually looked at these things.

Underreporting still persists to this day, furthermore, I doubt that even with the under reporting, crime rates especially of “taboo” crimes (before the 60’s), would even come close to equaling those post cultural/sexual revolution.

1. " The divorce rate" - I would argue that this has gone up more due to higher expectations among women, a greater voice for women (i.e. I don’t have to take this from you) and the two income dilemma than some kind of devaluation of marriage. Consumerism (money is a frequent cause of divorce) and mobility (thus people can start a new life without their spouse) have also contributed. Divorce is terrible to families, but I wouldn’t take away the progress women have made in the last 4 decades to fix it. Eliminate consumerism, de-romanticize marriage and one might find this issue is licked without going back to the “good ole days” looking for solutions.

Divorce has sky rocketed since the 60’s because of the “me” obsessed society we live in courtesy of the moral relativistic push of the cultural/sexual revolution that has allowed us to redefine what is good irrespective of others. We now see divorce as a normal course of action (over 50% of couples end their marriage, with 75% initiated by women) even though we have seen the harm it has done to children. I do not believe that we has a society needed the sort of measures introduced in the 60’s as a means of bringing about equality, in order words, the ends don’t justify the means.

1. The" it was better way back when issue - and then we look at statistics from the 50’s to compare to today". A lot of demographic data would suggest that things haven’t always been so good in the past. Some argue that the cultural stability of that time (the fifties) was an anomaly in itself and should not be used to compare to today. I wish I still had my sources, but I spent a long time researching some of these demographic stats such as premarital pregnancy rates, marriage rates etc. back to the early modern period in which as much as a third of the new brides had a bun in the oven on their wedding day in the 17th century etc… Unwed mothers, unconventional families and the like were very common during the heady days of the Industrial Revolution as well.

But that’s the thing, even though new brides had a bun in the oven on their wedding day, the man and woman were responsible and moral enough to take on the duties of parenthood within the confines of marriage (for the protection of the children), whereas now we have a great amount of children growing up fatherless, and/or living out of wedlock and/or experiencing poverty, and/or being aborted. I believe wholeheartedly that the restructuring of traditional morality especially since the 60’s has caused much confusion, selfishness, promiscuity, drug addiction, materialism, divorce . . . etc.

Rape stats too are almost meaningless in context of the under-reporting done before rape was “outed” for what it is violent crime. Even after looking at things objectively and filtering out bad or uncertain data I will concede that some things are still worse than they were. However, do we have to condemn the whole of the cultural revolution or can we say that perhaps we can pin most of the issues on one thing, drugs and the government’s response to that problem (meaning the incarceration rate)?

The cultural/sexual revolution swung the pendulum of morality radically that we have as a result reaped what we have sown, however, I do not discount the good that came out of it, it was the measures that were used that do not appeal to me.

1. “The problems we have since the 60s are due to the cultural/sexual revolution…just look at how bad things are (or have been)” - This is mostly only true in the US. In countries where this revolution was embraced even more than in the US, at least in parts, they don’t have the crime etc. we do. Look to the EU and one sees a godless, yet relatively stable society. Looking at the US in a vacuum clouds things and begs the question “what is different between us and them?”. If they are even less “moral” than us, why do they seem to have “figured it out” (BTW I’m a practicing Catholic…GK of my local KofC council - not advocating Godlessness). Might it be the almighty dollar?

You should be not be comparing countries but rather the pre/post cultural/sexual revolution of each respective country to gain any insight of the influence that this event had on society.

1. “The way to fix it is to undo what was done in the 60s”- Let’s face it, that’s not going to happen. The other issue is, what do we keep and what don’t we keep and who decides? Clearly drugs and open promiscuity were bad and can be blamed for much that has gone wrong in the last several decades. I don’t think many really deny this. Mistakes were made by the boomers as they emerged and changed our culture and I think many of these mistakes are being slowly undone. I don’t think we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Things are much better now or potentially much better now for minorities (not just racial but religious and sexual as well as unwed mothers etc.) for women (technically not minorities), the handicapped (physically and mentally) and for anyone who would have been on the fringes of society in the past. Consumerism (one of Pope Benedict’s and Pope JP2’s pet peeves) and resurgent poverty among working people account for a lot of today’s ills

.
I believe that we could have used other measures to bring about such changes, that being said, I have every hope that we can change things for the better.

to be continued. . .

 

[josie_L]

Anyway, sorry for the long post. I’m writing this as I work, so if it looks like a brain dump, it pretty much is. I also am terribly sorry it is so long and no less sorry that this is a major diversion from the original post. More than anything this is a pet peeve because it distracts from meaningful dialog about today’s issues and how to fix them. Clearly we are in a rapidly changing time with social issues galore. Framing these issues in the context of a decaying society which has turned its back on its values and thus reaped what it deserves allows people to ignore the issues at hand and blame others for our problems. I submit that consumerism, economic upheaval and lack of community in a mobile society can account for much of our issues today and that God is not smiting our secular (are we really all that secular?) society, as my parish priest suggests.

I am simply relaying the cause of what I believe to be at the root of the many social ills of today, most of what you said is a chimera of your own making, as I am not interested in blaming anyone, or ignoring key issues, or stating that God is smiting us . . etc.

 

[bodhisagan]

The picture was not and is not all that rosy vis-a-vis the U.S. and the Europeans have not got anything more figured out than the Americans, IMHO.

My reference to Europe was in contradiction to the point that the cultural revolution caused the crime etc.we see in the US. Most of Europe, particularly the most culturally liberal parts (Scandinavia and the Netherlands) have ridiculously low crime especially violent crime, yet they have really embraced modernity. Additionally rural parts of Europe are especially free of crime, which is quite different than the US where many rural areas per capita have rates of crime that rival the inner city. I contend that what they haven’t embraced is the lust for money we have.

Europe’s inability to deal with Nazi Germany in WW2 is irrelevant to this point since that was pre-cultural revolution and their poverty after the war was a direct result of that same war. Likewise our generosity in the Marshal Plan is undeniable, but too has nothing to do with theirs or our crime rates…

Unrest during the 60s was definitely to be found throughout the western world, but they recovered for the most part. Our inner cities burned and we experienced white flight and urban blight.

Europe’s issues with Muslim are somewhat more timely, but I don’t know what they have to do with Europe’s embracing of the cultural revolution of the 60s.

By no means do I think Europe has it all figured out. But they offer a clear example of a contradiction to the notion that the cultural revolution (not Mao’s cultural revolution…the 60s of course) lead to chaos and crime. Even if one can give me a score of reasons why Europe may have some advantage and that is why they have less crime (cultural homogeny is one I’ve entertained myself), it still doesn’t make the case that the cultural revolution caused America’s ills, many of which we’ve always had.

Clearly as a Catholic I don’t agree personally with some of the moral relativism and the excesses that are professed by many today. That shouldn’t prevent me however from being objective on the state of things today as they relate to yesterday.

 

[KyivAndrew]

My reference to Europe was in contradiction to the point that the cultural revolution caused the crime etc.we see in the US. Most of Europe, particularly the most culturally liberal parts (Scandinavia and the Netherlands) have ridiculously low crime especially violent crime, yet they have really embraced modernity. Additionally rural parts of Europe are especially free of crime, which is quite different than the US where many rural areas per capita have rates of crime that rival the inner city. I contend that what they haven’t embraced is the lust for money we have.

By no means do I think Europe has it all figured out. But they offer a clear example of a contradiction to the notion that the cultural revolution (not Mao’s cultural revolution…the 60s of course) lead to chaos and crime. Even if one can give me a score of reasons why Europe may have some advantage and that is why they have less crime (cultural homogeny is one I’ve entertained myself), it still doesn’t make the case that the cultural revolution caused America’s ills, many of which we’ve always had.

By cultural revolution, I understand this to mean the loosening of public morals starting approximately in the 1960s and I do hold it greatly responsible for the crime rate of which you speak. How? Boys from single homes with absent fathers. That is now accepted and for sure this is a legacy of the cultural revolution IMHO. Males growing up without role models.

On top of this, there is a gun culture and the gangster culture in the U.S. which I dislike. Violence in Hollywood movies is particularly atrocious and is also the result of the loosening of censorship on movie and T.V. which too can be laid at the doorstep of the “If it feels good, do it” mentality brought on the by cultural revolution. Have you ever watched some of the topics on contemporary sitcoms. Have you ever listened to the lyrics of certain popular songs? I’ve given up. And to believe these movies and entertainment and music have no effect whatsoever on public morality is untenable IMHO. As one wag once put it, we can have no problems saying that High Art elevates the soul, but many are so reluctant to say that low and morally retrograde art sickens the soul. (I think the late Irving Kristol penned that one). And he’s right. Many of us are too timid to condemn something as Morally Wrong for the fear of being called closed-minded or judgmental by a smart alec. Who cares?

Fatherless families, the all-permeating culture of violence in America’s entertainment industry – all given the push and support from the “cultural revolution” to a large degree explains the violence which you rightfully bemoan. I just see the source as different from you (to me it’s a cultural-ethical sickness) and I believe the answer is more Religion and morality, not less. The Europeans in certain countries are still cruising from their Christian heritage. America is a relatively new country in comparison to Europe’s 1,950 years of Christianity (if one starts with Rome and Greece).

God Bless.

 

[bodhisagan]

I am simply relaying the cause of what I believe to be at the root of the many social ills of today, most of what you said is a chimera of your own making, as I am not interested in blaming anyone, or ignoring key issues, or stating that God is smiting us . . etc.

Sorry Josie, no intention to create a strawman out of you - as I said the statement of the good ole days just really irks me. However, I live in a very conservative patch of the woods and as a member of the KofC most of my brothers are also. For many of them the items I contradict are exactly how they feel. Any time something bad happens I hear something about how crazy things are today from people who actually grew up in statistically worse times for many of the ills they’re speaking about.

So yes, I should have made it clear that I wasn’t making these views yours, however, these views represent the views of many, I know these people well. So no strawman here.

 

[josie_L]

By cultural revolution, I understand this to mean the loosening of public morals starting approximately in the 1960s and I do hold it greatly responsible for the crime rate of which you speak. How? Boys from single homes with absent fathers. That is now accepted and for sure this is a legacy of the cultural revolution IMHO. Males growing up without role models.

On top of this, there is a gun culture and the gangster culture in the U.S. which I dislike. Violence in Hollywood movies is particularly atrocious and is also the result of the loosening of censorship on movie and T.V. which too can be laid at the doorstep of the “If it feels good, do it” mentality brought on the by cultural revolution. Have you ever watched some of the topics on contemporary sitcoms. Have you ever listened to the lyrics of certain popular songs? I’ve given up. And to believe these movies and entertainment and music have no effect whatsoever on public morality is untenable IMHO. As one wag once put it, we can have no problems saying that High Art elevates the soul, but many are so reluctant to say that low and morally retrograde art sickens the soul. (I think the late Irving Kristol penned that one). And he’s right. Many of us are too timid to condemn something as Morally Wrong for the fear of being called closed-minded or judgmental by a smart alec. Who cares?

Fatherless families, the all-permeating culture of violence in America’s entertainment industry – all given the push and support from the “cultural revolution” to a large degree explains the violence which you rightfully bemoan. I just see the source as different from you (to me it’s a cultural-ethical sickness) and I believe the answer is more Religion and morality, not less. The Europeans in certain countries are still cruising from their Christian heritage. America is a relatively new country in comparison to Europe’s 1,950 years of Christianity (if one starts with Rome and Greece).

God Bless.

I remember watching a show on juvenile male elephants lacking a father/male role model, and believe it or not, these elephants became belligerent, violent, and lacking in social skills that resulted in their separation from the herd (unusual behaviour for an elephant). Their rogue behaviour was a result of not having an older male elephant influencing them, and so it was decided (by zoologists) to get one of the male members of the herd to guide these juvenile males into adulthood, the younger elephants as a result changed their aggressive behaviours and lived once again peaceably within the herd.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I remember watching a show on juvenile male elephants lacking a father/male role model, and believe it or not, these elephants became belligerent, violent, and lacking in social skills that resulted in their separation from the herd (unusual behaviour for an elephant). Their rogue behaviour was a result of not having an older male elephant influencing them, and so it was decided (by zoologists) to get one of the male members of the herd to guide these juvenile males into adulthood, the younger elephants as a result changed their aggressive behaviours and lived once again peaceably within the herd.

I never cease to learn something new from you with each passing day from your energetic posting. I would have to call you a Power Poster, whipping up a fact here on one thread, an emotion on another somewhere else, and a qualification on a third, all within 14 minutes - stop. I guess the education system in la belle province is superior to ours. At least that or you have lightning fast typing skills fortified by years of speed reading. I’m out of breath.

 

[bodhisagan]

I remember watching a show on juvenile male elephants lacking a father/male role model, and believe it or not, these elephants became belligerent, violent, and lacking in social skills that resulted in their separation from the herd (unusual behavior for an elephant). Their rogue behavior was a result of not having an older male elephant influencing them, and so it was decided (by zoologists) to get one of the male members of the herd to guide these juvenile males into adulthood, the younger elephants as a result changed their aggressive behaviors and lived once again peaceably within the herd.

Agreed on the single parent homes front. But many of the single family homes are single family because of our incarceration rate (father is in jail) due to our failed drug policies and not because of loose morals (certainly loose morals accounts for a percent, I don’t feel qualified to quantify the magnitude of either relative to the other). We have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. We imprison often non-violent drug offenders while their kids go on without dad at home. While in jail dad learns all kind of nice antisocial behaviors and comes out even worse.

On the gun culture, Amen! We just love shooting people.

But that’s the thing. We’re looking at a complex set of issue here. The moralistic perspective as primary or sole cause just doesn’t account for all of our problems.

Another way to phrase it is that perhaps we changed faster than the culture could adapt. Clearly from the the early 60s to the mid 80s it looked like we were in a tail spin with crime and other issues. It would appear that following some of the trends of the last ten years or so (which btw is often correlated to when the crack crime wave began to ebb) we have steadily improved on a number of demographic factors, so perhaps we are finally adapting. Divorce rates have been dropping from their high in the early 80s and other factors such as teenage pregnancy violent crime rate etc. also seem to be improving and this is year over year.

In other words, maybe we couldn’t handle our new found freedom. Maybe we’re figuring it out only after some heartache.

Once again, the argument that I hear often and that I am disputing frames things in such a way that a) things are worse than ever and that b) it is all or largely due to loose morals and that it is worse than ever today, even when compared to the late 70’s or 80s. This just doesn’t hold water… If things appear to be getting better but if anything people are opting for non traditional lifestyles more than ever, how do we blame today’s loose morals for our problems?

 

[bodhisagan]

Thanks bodhisagan for a very informative post. I don’t think it a diversion whatsoever and it made me think. I submit that, though of course everything in the fifties and back may be idolized by “traditionalists” inordinately, I submit that NO: our society in terms of morality has descended in kind and not of degree to what was before. Of course, domestic abuse and the other pertinent points you mentioned were under-reported and one should banish wishful thinking about past glory. There were major societal problems, but not of the kind we have today since God was pronounced dead in the sixties. I believe even FDR back in his day even thanked God that the problems being dealt in the 30s were “only” of a materialistic nature and, thankfully, not spiritual problems. We have both today.

Just take a look at Hollywood culture, violence, video games, “grindhouse” movies where human butchery becomes humor. Look at the recent VMA awards and how those idolized by our youth behave. Each new film Hollywood pushes out always seeks to “push the limits”. At the rate it’s going with every passing decade and coarsening of culture, movies and music will keep on a downward descent until some crisis finally wakes everyone up.

I believe the answer to consumerism and the other problems you listed is Christianity, specifically Catholicism which is immune to the fast-growing unfounded “Prosperity Gospel”. Catholicism sets man up to lay treasure in Heaven rightfully which surely is proper in regards to combating instant self-gratification and consumerism and materialism. You rightly complain that one should not study the U.S. alone but I will submit that the best treatise ever written on the nature of Democracy in America was by a Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville back in 1840. Most political philosophers still marvel at his perceptiveness and acuity. De Tocqueville wrote:

…men cannot do without dogmatic belief, and it is much desired that such belief should exist among them. I now add, that of all kinds of dogmatic belief, the most desirable appears to me to be dogmatic belief in matters of religion; and this is a clear inference, even from no higher consideration than the interests of this world. Men are immeasurably interested in acquiring fixed ideas of God, of the soul, and of their general duties to their Creator and their fellow men; for doubt on these first principles would abandon all their actions to chance and would condemn them in some way to disorder and impotence.
When the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the higher powers of the intellect and half paralyzes all others. Every man accustoms himself to having only confused and changing notions on the subjects most interesting to his fellow creatures and himself. His opinions are ill-defended and easily abandoned; and, in despair of ever solving by himself the hard problems respecting the destiny of man, he ignobly submits to think no more about them.
It must be acknowledged that equality, which brings great benefits into the world, nevertheless suggests to men some very dangerous propensities. It tends to isolate them from one another, to concentrate every man’s attention upon himself; and it lays open the soul to an inordinate love of material gratification. The greatest advantage of religion is to inspire diametrically contrary principles. There is no religion that does not place the object of man’s desires above and beyond the treasures of earth and that does not naturally raise his soul to regions far above those senses. Nor is there any which does not impose on man some duties towards his kind and thus draw him at times from contemplation of himself.
Religious nations are therefore naturally strong on the very point on which democratic nations are weak; this shows of what importance it is for men to preserve their religion as their conditions become more equal. (de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume II, First Book, Chapter V)

This was Tocqueville’s prescription for the future success of American democracy, to hold onto Religion tightly to fight the corrupting effects of society. It still holds true today almost 200 years later. And I am not American. God Bless, Andrew

p.s. I think I wanted to comment on another point of yours below

As a Catholic I clearly think that embracing Catholicism would certainly help us through much of our problems. I think too that embracing any theology or philosophy that essentially matched those values in terms of charity and love would also help.

Keep in mind we are about the most churchy (my term) developed country in the world. Yet, I can think of no other developed country with our degree of social issues. They have their issues, but it’s the magnitude. Church alone isn’t fixing this.

Our society of violence is clearly out of control. I wish we could do more about that. As a father of three boys it concerns me a great deal. But keep in mind, aside from some of he fringes of the 60s movements, most of the message from that time were anti commercialism, anti-violent and as such would have rejected the rampant consumerism that fuels these industries (film-video games) today. I add the point that there’s been a lot of violence in film for a long time. Many of the same modernists (or I guess more accurately post modernists) who are targeted for scrutiny by traditionalists are themselves very against violence in media as well.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful comments and I too like De Tocqueville; he was an interesting fellow. C-Span ran a long series on him a few years back. It was quite interesting.

 

[PJM]

Having debated many self professed athesit, I notice what clearly seems to be plain old lack of common sense and logic, even boardering on a loss of personal intergity.

“To thy own self be true” Shakeshere

Often they seem quick to Pontifcate this position of that, which no evidence to support there calims, as if there own opion is of such great weight, nothing further is required.

Most confusing to me is why they even bother to participate in the Forum. They don’t seem prone to listening to what is shared. God works in most mysterious ways.

I pray that God will grant us both greater understanding.

Pat

 

[josie_L]

I never cease to learn something new from you with each passing day from your energetic posting. I would have to call you a Power Poster, whipping up a fact here on one thread, an emotion on another somewhere else, and a qualification on a third, all within 14 minutes - stop. I guess the education system in la belle province is superior to ours. At least that or you have lightning fast typing skills fortified by years of speed reading. I’m out of breath.

It’s funny you say that because I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts, but I disagree with you with regard to how fast I post, there are days when my thoughts flow easily and other days where I’m struggling to put them together.

p.s. I’m honoured that a lawyer such as yourself thinks this of me.

 

[josie_L]

Agreed on the single parent homes front. But many of the single family homes are single family because of our incarceration rate (father is in jail) due to our failed drug policies and not because of loose morals (certainly loose morals accounts for a percent, I don’t feel qualified to quantify the magnitude of either relative to the other). We have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. We imprison often non-violent drug offenders while their kids go on without dad at home. While in jail dad learns all kind of nice antisocial behaviors and comes out even worse.

I’m not sure I agree with you here, I think the majority of fatherless children as more to do with absent fathers, most mothers are basically raising their children from birth alone. Here’s some really good information based on the Child Trends Databanks website:

Headline

The percentage of births to unmarried women has steadily increased in the past few decades, from 5.3 percent in 1960 to 36.8 percent in 2005. (See Figure 1) In 2004, the most recent year for which data are available by all ages, over a quarter of births to woman ages 25 to 29 (27.8 percent) and over half of births to woman ages 20 to 24 (54.8 percent) were to unmarried women.

Importance

Women who give birth outside of marriage tend to be more disadvantaged than their married counterparts, both before and after having a nonmarital birth. Unmarried mothers generally have lower incomes, lower education levels, and greater dependence on welfare assistance than do married mothers.1 Economic disadvantage may even extend into old age, with women who are single mothers for a period of at least 10 years during their life at greater risk of being poor at ages 65 through 75.2 In addition, women who have a nonmarital birth have reduced marriage prospects when compared with single women without children.3,4,5

Children born to unmarried mothers are more likely to grow up in a single-parent household, experience instability in living arrangements, live in poverty, and have socioemotional problems.6 As these children reach adolescence, they are more likely to have low educational attainment, engage in sex at younger ages, and have a premarital birth.7,8 As young adults, children born outside of marriage are more likely to be idle (neither in school nor employed), have lower occupational status and income, and have more troubled marriages and divorces than those born to married parents.9

Trends

The percentage of births to unmarried women has increased dramatically in recent decades, from 5.3 percent in 1960 to 32.2 percent in 1995. This percentage was relatively stable for several years in the mid-1990s, but has risen slightly each year since 1997, reaching 36.8 percent in 2005 (preliminary estimate).(See Figure 1)

Data for 2004, the most recent year for which data by all ages are available, also indicate an increase in the proportion of births that occur to unmarried women among all age groups, including women older than 20.

The long-term trend toward nonmarital births may be attributed, in part, to an increase in cohabiting unions and births within such relationships. By the mid-1990s, approximately 40 percent of nonmarital births occurred to women in cohabiting unions, compared with 29 percent in the early 1980s. 10 More recent estimates indicate that 49 percent of unmarried mothers in large urban areas were cohabiting at the time of the birth of a child.11

childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/75UnmarriedBirths.cfm

 

[josie_L]

Ok I made a mistake (it happens ), the majority of children born out of wedlock have parents that are cohabiting and/or romantically involved when the child is born, however, their relationship is usually short-lived, and only about 10% of mothers have raised their children alone since birth (no contact with the father).

“Despite their best intentions, just a little over a third of fathers are living with their
children five years later, and there is substantial variation in the involvement of nonresident
fathers: a third have no contact and 43 percent have monthly contact with their
child. Among the latter, the average number of days a father sees his child is 12 per
month (Carlson et al. forthcoming).”

crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP08-04-FF.pdf

 

[josie_L]

But that’s the thing. We’re looking at a complex set of issue here. The moralistic perspective as primary or sole cause just doesn’t account for all of our problems.

I absolutely believe that if people were not as morally relativistic and our culture was not saturated with liberal views, our society would fare better than most comparatively speaking.

Another way to phrase it is that perhaps we changed faster than the culture could adapt. Clearly from the the early 60s to the mid 80s it looked like we were in a tail spin with crime and other issues. It would appear that following some of the trends of the last ten years or so (which btw is often correlated to when the crack crime wave began to ebb) we have steadily improved on a number of demographic factors, so perhaps we are finally adapting. Divorce rates have been dropping since their high in the early 80s and other factors such as teenage pregnancy violent crime rate etc. also seem to be improving and this is year over year.

We couldn’t adapt because the changes we made were not necessarily good ones, in fact, we changed things we shouldn’t have. As for the drop in crime, well, there could many reasons for that, one of which could be better police enforcement and/or government policies, and/or greater access to education , , , etc. Anyways, what I know is that although crime rates are going down (from their initially high peak in the 80 and even 90’s), morally speaking, we are living in a time where everything goes, and truth is but a subjective opinion.

In other words, maybe we couldn’t handle our new found freedom. Maybe we’re figuring it out only after some heartache.

Maybe the problem is we had too much freedom, so in that respect I agree with you.

Once again, the argument that I hear often and that I am disputing frames things in such a way that a) things are worse than ever and that b) it is all or largely due to loose morals and that it is worse than ever today, even when compared to the late 70’s or 80s. This just doesn’t hold water… If things appear to be getting better but if anything people are opting for non traditional lifestyles more than ever, how do we blame today’s loose morals for our problems?

Yes, things are getting better but is it as good as it should be when you take into account the low crime rates before the cultural/sexual revolution? I mean why was so much changed (even that which was good), in my opinion, the arbiters of change threw the baby with the bath water.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.

It notes that the “irrelgious” . . . tend to be more (essentially) superstitious. The problem is there’s a big difference between being merely irreligious and a full fledged atheist (or agnostic who leans strongly toward a naturalistic and rational worldview).

It’s a classic red herring. The irreligious are more likely to be weird – therefore god must exist (and of course our religion must be true)?

The funny thing is this WSJ article conveniently fails to mention the Catholic Church has a cadre of priests who perform exorcisms on people (to expel evil spirits) and homes alleged to be haunted. Indeed most Christians (including traditional evangelicals) believe they can lay hands on friends and mystically heal them by focused spirit power. They also fail to mention charismatic Christians hold large services where their pastors commonly use absurd theatrics like slapping a paralyzed member of their audience, who then mystically gets up and walks (and sometimes even finds the energy and muscular endurance to jump around).

So essentially it’s the same sort of weirdness we see in equally bizarre practices like palm reading or astrology … it just happens in a church.

Naturalists expressly reject paranormal explanations for everything. We reject palm reading or astrology just as readily as we reject religion. Frankly, it’s amusing that anyone would use such an article to argue against atheism and naturalism. You’re just making yourself look silly in the eyes of people who understand this issue.

What is really disheartening is the illustration of how truly gullible so many of our people are; and I’ve lost quite a bit of respect for the WSJ. How they could print such skewed garbage is beyond belief? It’s a bigoted article that they could never get away with if they were advocating discrimination against any other group. Moreover, it was poorly written and improperly drew a nexus between real atheists and agnostics, and irreligious individuals who have no intellectual basis for their beliefs (or lack thereof).

It’s obvious that we (atheists & agnostics) need to become much more active in defending ourselves from this form of hate speech (and religious bigotry more generally speaking).

 

[KyivAndrew]

Frankly, it’s amusing that anyone would use such an article to argue against atheism and naturalism. You’re just making yourself look silly in the eyes of people who understand this issue.

Well then again people who do understand the issue and the questions it evokes have already responded to this thread, like anEvilAtheist. Are you saying anEvilAtheist doesn’t understand the issue of the rationality of atheism vs. the rationality of theism? He is an atheist who has been longer on the boards than you and has made his points known on this thread and where he sees points for concern ; as opposed to you using the easy way out by using an adhominem as a rational rebuttal (i.e. I look silly). Hah, LOL

The article makes people question their stereotypical assumptions of the reasonableness (or lack thereof ) of Christians versus the self-proclaimed reasonableness of the irreligious, agnostic or atheist. Indeed I believe the poll revealed that 21% of atheists claim belief in a personal God or impersonal force.

If you find the exercise silly, fine…Don’t post here. It might make the thread more thoughtful and reasonable that way in your absence. Many others have responded and it is good to clear up old unfounded stereotypes of the “irrational Christian”. If you think the WSJ article is hate-speech by comparing peoples’ beliefs then you have no understanding of what “hate-speech” is under the law, and I mean that. Hate-speech: that’s bizarre. Nobody at all has described atheists in the derogatory terms you routinely use against Christ and Christianity. This is an important subject.