« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Foghorn Leghorn: Losing our religion? Not

By: Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary)  |  March 11th, 2009 at 12:34 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The latest misleading (Foghorn) headline and story from the Drive-by media begging for DeVine Gamecock correction (Leghorn):

Survey: We’re losing our religion
Poll on faith in U.S. shows more claim no religion; percentage of Christians down overall.

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, up from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

Technically, “-ing” words describe only live events, but let’s accept the misleading definition the press uses to spew fog and consider they mean a “recent and ongoing phenomenon.

The real story is that American religion has been stable since at least 2001. That they would trumpet a statistically insignificant ZERO POINT EIGHT (0.8) percent drop as evidence to justify their agenda driven headline tells us all we need to know about the smoke-blowing machines passing as dead tree “reporters.”

But even if we accept the 15% figure, even it is foggy:

About 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power, but not the personal God at the core of monotheistic faiths.

Notice the use the “personal” qualifier for God? This is an obvious device (requiring that one assume most Americans are trained theologians) to fog up the fact that only 3% of Americans are atheists. the same number reported for decades.

Then we have the inevitable fog seeking to gin up a new Great Schism within the Christian world:

Christians who aren’t Catholic also are a declining segment of the U.S.

In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants largely explains the shift.

Earth (and Heaven) to the Drive-by Media: Catholics and Protestants worship the same risen from the dead Savior and are Christians.

Again, the real story here is that after significant declines in organized religious devotion in the 1990s, there was none in the “Bush War” 2000s.

But we have seen a continuing (since Walter Cronkite’s Vietnam is lost lies of the late 1960s) decline of devotion to accurate reporting in the media. The Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., AP and the Charlotte Observer apparently need to discover public values, especially one that is regularly taught via the Ten Commandments in the stable for the last eight years, Jewish synagogues and Christian churches: Thall shalt not bear false witness.

Have you no shame un-mainstream media? Your job is to bear truthful witness.

Let me help you understand what a true significant decline looks like.

Look at the decline of newspaper sales over the past eight years.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    Organized religion doesn’t have the same meaning to mainstream America as it does to mainstream media.

    Mainstream America would more likely think of organized religion as orgs along the lines of Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Methodist, Episcopal, etc. In recent years a lot of what is called nondenominational churches have sprung up.

    And yeah, that “personal” qualifier is really stupid. God isn’t any one person’s God, but belongs to everyone.

  • mailloux

    I’ve been of the opinion (and frequently blog on the topic) that a waning of Christianity in America is a portent for future trouble. So, I do think there is a real trend toward a general watering down of Christianity. Europe departed from its Christian roots and it’s a mess, heading toward demographic suicide (for native Europeans) and Islamization. To lose the Christian religion is to invite danger.

    I also believe that there are many cultural pressures to leave religion to an hour?s time on Sunday and never let it intrude during the rest of the week. That politically correct pressure also explains why many easily influenced people eventually give up on religion altogether. If religion is only one hour a week, then it’s pretty easy to disregard when making choices the rest of the week.

    So, all in all, I think the trend is real. Here’s a pew survey that also finds about 16% of the population to be unaffiliated (see: http://religions.pewforum.org/reports). Among 18-29 year olds the number jumps to about 25% . . . if you work at a college like I do, then that number really wouldn’t surprise you!

    The pew survey also breaks down the unaffiliated number. The breakout is:
    atheist – 1.6%
    agnostic – 2.4%
    Nothing in particular (secular unaffiliated) – 6.3%
    Nothing in particular (religious unaffiliated) – 5.8%

    I imagine that the “believe-in-a-higher-power” folks likely fall into that religious unaffiliated category (according to pew, these unaffiliated respondents claim that religion is ?somewhat? to ?very important? in their lives). Personally, I don’t consider these folks to be very serious at all about religion. In fact, I think they’re probably intellectually lazy and are easily distracted by frivolities like who’s the next big contestant on American Idol. More of these kinds of religious persons worry me, especially when some were raised Catholic and mainline Protestant. These folks are more likely to be suckered by moral relativism and utilitarianism. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve met many, many people just like this . . . unaffiliated, claiming to be spiritual people, but living rather unvirtuous lives. I’m not impressed by them.

    Regarding Catholics (I’m Catholic), according to pew, “While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic.” To me, this is not surprising. I teach 9-10th grade catechism and I always find that they come to me with almost no knowledge of their faith. When they reach college they may claim that they are “Catholic”, but don’t practice and eventually slide away from the faith. Poor catechesis is very, very commonplace. The result of poor catechesis is fallen away Catholics . . . sometimes to Protestant denominations and sometimes to nothing at all.

    I’ve not hidden (in my posts) that religion is the basis of my conservatism. I’m also of the opinion that Christianity is the foundation of western civilization. If we lose it like Europe (and I believe we are losing it incrementally), then we are in grave trouble.

    Respectfully (and Take Care!), mailloux

  • Rod_Patrick

    You’ve kept your promise.

    ‘was busy picking up dandelions. I didn’t see your post immediately.

    Thanks for helping me in clarifying my own doubts/speculations on the issue. Clearly, the less than 1% drop in the number of Christians being argued by the article is easily eaten up by the margin of error in the said survey.

    Thus, I agree with you on this.

    One thing though:

    In my personal observation, the survey has somehow showed a valid argument for the decrease on the number of people with church affiliation who don’t really believe in the existence of God (i.e., “personal” God). This is somehow connected to the growing number of pro-abortion Christians. Of course, outliers exist. And my observation may not be true, in general.

    I am praying for the best, bro. I still want America to remain as a Christian nation in real sense.

    Finally, it’s another GC excellent diary. Thanks again.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    I remember another time in the not too distant past when religion, Christianity, seemed to be waning and we were told then that it was dying and I’m not referring to the 90s because that was nothing compared to what we were told in the late 60s into the 70s.

    I think a lot of people are afraid of talking about Christianity, hence their own faith because of the MSM’s skewed view with which they are hounded on a constant basis. Poltical Correctness rules at present command that Christianity is bad. The 80s saw a resurngence in religion. The 90s killed the resurgence but didn’t take it nearly to the levels of earlier times and Bush, though religious himself, didn’t do anything to defend religion for others.

    Now, as much as the MSM talks down religion, it was one of the first questions asked of every candidate for the presidency during the primaries. Obama had to have religious sectors on his side to win. I remember the MSM making much ado over Fred’s lack of religious participation and let’s not forget Romney’s Mormonism.

    To me, this is just more propaganda to aid in replacing God with government. It will never happen but they will silence the religious if they can, which is just as good.

  • mailloux

    They are good ones and I cannot frankly disprove a single one of them. But, with that said, I still think Christianity is taking a hit because of poor catechesis.

    I like to talk about religion and often engage folks in friendly discussions. I seem to run across (maybe I’m looking for it, eh?!) a lot of anecdotal evidence suggesting that lots of folks don’t really consider their faith as something to live by.

    I was just recently speaking with one of my wife’s uncles. Out of all of his immediate relatives (his siblings and his children), only he is a church going Catholic. All the rest are unaffiliated . . . the kids, though, are affiliated with video games, dropping out of college, living together, etc. It’s a sad case and not the only one I’ve run into . . . not by a long shot.

    Although many may label themselves as Christian, I fear that in reality, their Christian label doesn?t have much genuine impact on their lives . . . the surveys under discussion seem to hint at that and my own anecdotal evidence agrees, so that?s why I?m saying what I?m saying.

    I may end up as the minority opinion on this . . . and for God’s sake, I hope I really am wrong!

    Take Care, mailloux

  • mailloux

    If I seem unresponsive during the late afternoon and evening hours, it’s because I’m on kid duty (good work if you can get it!) and don’t have much time at the computer. But, I eventually do respond . . . even if it’s at more of a snail mail pace.

    Take Care, mailloux

  • pilgrim

    The way I read this diary is that gamecock is refusing to allow as just a “given” that the conclusions reached by the drive-bys media is true. The drive-by media are concluding that modern folks are not old fashioned and fuddy-duddys like Americans used to be from the stats.
    Mailloux sees the same stats, and draws a different conclusion than the driveby media does. At least that is the way I read it.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    as well as point out other times when this attack has been initiated. It waxes and wanes all the time. While your kids (meaning those you are teaching) don’t seem to know a whole lot now, there’s a concerted effort in schools to keep it that way and parents are just too busy managing their own lives and not paying enough attention to the family. One of the drawbacks of the dual earner families that seems to be a necessity these days.

    These kids, and their parents will come back to what they can count on at some point when they realize how empty their lives are without religion, usually when some crisis pushes them in that direction but they do come back. There will be a resurgence toward God once again as government utterly fails to fill that void and people see their families completely falling apart from lack of Him in their lives.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    so, he gets a different take on it from a personal view. I can see he is worried about this and I can’t blame him. Me, however, I still have faith that people will find their way back.

    mailloux I never worry about slow responses, so don’t you worry about them, either, okay? Sometimes I lose entire diaries when things get hectic and I haven’t had much time for a couple of days here.

  • mailloux

    It’s not the media’s conclusions that I’m embracing . . . I’m offering my own interpretation of the data based largely on my own experiences. My interpretation indicates that Christianity as a guiding force in moral decision making is becoming less relevant in the culture. The surveys do not measure that exact phenomena. The pew survey took at face value whatever the respondent mentioned for affiliation. I think there are probably a good amount of Catholic respondents that haven’t seen a church in years . . . they like to call themselves, “culturally Catholic.” But, to me, these folks are unaffiliated even though they answered ,”Catholic.” Only the really honest ones answered unaffiliated. Bear in mind, these are my own follow-up hypotheses on the survey data . . . but that’s the nature of survey data. It usually creates more questions than it answers!

    Take Care, mailloux

  • itrytobenice

    We have been fat and happy for many years. If you wanted a job, you could have one. Poverty brings obesity rather than scarcity. TVs, microwaves, cell phones, even cable are considered necessities rather than luxuries. The average size of our homes has more than doubled. If you don’t have a bedroom for every person and at least a couple of bathrooms, you are considered to be living poor.

    When people have all they physically need and want, it is sometimes difficult to convince them that there is another need in their lives. They have a tendency to believe that they have or can get all they want and/or need.

    But when hard times come; when no matter what you do there’s never enough; people begin to look outside themselves. At that point, as long as we Christians are doing our job properly, we can introduce them to the bread of life.

    We had a preacher from Haiti who came to our church preaching and soliciting donations for a roof for their spot in the world (building just doesn’t seem like the right word for a set of benches.) He said something that I’ve not forgotten. He said that in Haiti there are no leftovers.

    Those people are on fire for Jesus. They know the source of their joy and it’s not a big screen TV, the playoffs, a twelve pack and bag of chips.

    There was a nationwide revival back in the 30s and that didn’t come about because of the New Deal. It was due to the Great Depression. And when you look back on the history of Israel, they didn’t cry out to God until their oppressors had crushed them. People are just people. The enemy of our souls waves pretty little shiny objects in front of our faces and we are readily drawn away.

    And even those who believe in God and the devil and prefer to have God over the devil are still led astray by a fun weekend at the lake, or a day fixing up the crib.

    But we may be coming into a time when there are not so many shiny objects and we Christians better do our job or we will be responsible for many lost souls.

  • itrytobenice

    I know many people who lay claim to a religion and/or God but you’d never know they had any idea who God is by looking at their lives.

    Some time back, I had been asking my boss bring his wife and kids to church with us. Each time he kinda put my off, but then one time told me that he went to church every week. He was Catholic and went in, did his duty and then went about his life however he wished.

    He might lay claim to religion, but you’d be hard pressed to convince me that he’d ever made a real commitment to follow the risen Savior.

  • mailloux

    Perhaps I need more faith in my fellow man.

    In the mean while, though, I will continue to teach 9th and 10th grade catechism at my small country parish. With the permission of the priest, I’ve written my own lessons. It’s, I believe, a solid catechism that starts with a discussion on different cases for the very existence of God and then onto an argument for the divinity of Christ. The students, I find, respond most enthusiastically to this approach. They are, to borrow a phrase, surprised by truth.

    Take Care, mailloux

  • mailloux

    every other aspect of their lives as well (IMHO). Their moral decision making will not be made in a vacuum. If it’s not their Christianity, then it’s something else . . . and often enough, after gentle questions, I’ve found moral relativism to underly many folk’s moral decisions.

    Take Care, mailloux

  • mailloux

    nt

  • c17wife

    n/t

  • c17wife

    “Those people are on fire for Jesus. They know the source of their joy and it?s not a big screen TV, the playoffs, a twelve pack and bag of chips.”

    You just nail it right there.

  • Rod_Patrick

    The only way for the social conservatives to defeat pro-choice movement is a unified coalition of Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans and Mormons.

    Bush tried to do that but he miserably failed.

  • mailloux

    Many denominations of Christians share the same basic theology. That theology proves the full human personhood of a one-celled human being at conception. I’ve written about it several times (see here for example: http://www.redstate.com/mailloux/2008/12/12/converting-obama-voting-catholics/).

    If folks recognized the Lordship of God, then the argument I blogged about is quite meaningful if not a downright compelling case for the atrocity of abortion.

    Take Care, mailloux

  • itrytobenice

    I appreciate you reading my little dissertation. Sometimes I’m way too wordy.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    since 2001, so that you ss a waning as a portent, doesn’t change the facts. Yes, there was a waning in the 90s and that was a bad portent that continues as a slouching towards Gomorrah, but the srvey they cite doesn’t show an increase in the portent.

    There is no matter of “disagreement” with respect to the facts even the left cites in this article.

    I suspect we agree on the facts of waning DESPITE the survey this column addresses. So as to the danger in fact, we agree.

    more later

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Rod_Patrick

    And I admire your devotion to your faith.

    Frankly, besides the failure of many politicians, I believe there has also been a huge “failure” on the part of many Christian churches and leaders (all denominations) in sustaining the spiritual devotion of many “Cultural Christians” (not just Catholics) to their own faith. I find that Mormons have been more effective in this regard.

    Having said that, I feel a “real coalition” is now necessary, not just “de-facto” understanding among churches. Obama’s personal conviction on the issue of abortion is really dangerous. Bickerings between and among our church leaders and ourselves due to our doctrinal differences should also be addressed particularly in the arena of politics. In secular politics, we should suport a unified stand.

    The recent attempt of two state lawmakers in CT (I heard they were pro-gay marriage) in passing laws that will encroach the independence of the church-based institutions is just an example of fascism that we can expect in the future, both at the federal and state levels.

  • redneck_hippie
  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • penguin2

    Glad you wrote about that survey “gamecock.” I always have to remember, whenever the MSM writes about something they can headline negatively toward us-they do.

    I understand mailloux’s concerns though, and believe he is probably right. But, I take heart from the thinking of itrytobenice and Steph C, and the others.

    One other thought to add to the mix, remember, when the wall of Communism fell-the Eastern Orthodox church came out from the underground, it had not died. This was also true for the Jewish people who survived centuries of persecution and the “Final Solution.”

  • Susannah

    I would recommend, but for some reason, the “recommend” button is not showing up for me on this diary. :-(

  • Susannah

    I would recommend, but for some reason, the “recommend” button is not showing up for me on this diary. :-(

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    was a defining book for me that helped make me convert to conservatism.

    My main point was the misleading press.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Susannah

    I recced it. :-)

  • Menlo

    That makes it a faith movement which loses credibility as a movement for legal justice. To the contrary, we are also going to need more atheists, agnostics, and non Christians. Not only that, but more such pro-life people are going to have to push it up on their voting priorities. Regardless, the notion that the desire for legal protection of life is spiritually-based is absurd. If people think we want to make spiritual teachings into law, they will not only oppose the law but also oppose coming to Christ. And we will not be taken seriously.

    In a broader general sense, Christians should not seek to implement Christian teachings into a law for all society. God’s laws should apply only to those in the church. That was what Paul was talking about in Corinthians when he said we are to be in the world and not of it.

    Unless you can make an entirely secular argument that requires no faith in any sort of spirit, soul, supernatural power, or afterlife; then you have no valid basis for a law. What’s more, you lose credibility and make matters worse if you attempt to use the law as a vehicle for bringing people to Christ or vice versa.

    The pro-life cause makes perfect (and even better) sense from a completely secular viewpoint.

  • Doc Holliday

    in people that believe finding a penny is lucky compared to research done prior to the reduction of copper content; Stop the Presses!

    If they want to talk about decreases in America, they should talk about the steady decrease in those who believe the global warming farce.

  • DONTREADONME

    fifteen percent up from 14.2 instead of 15 percent up to 14.2. Why, because to most people there really is not difference in these numbers, most people see 14.2 and think wow that is kind of close to 15, contrasting that with 8.2 in 1990. What I see here is not story or one that is very compelling as opposed to 8 years ago in contrast with 10 years before that. By that I mean, who ever did the study and decided to write the story with the conclusion that we have changed significantly in the last 8 years is quite preposterious.

  • DONTREADONME

    I posted the same sentiment. See below,

  • Doc Holliday

    I am sure.

  • DONTREADONME
  • DL80

    I think you are (and Gamecock) are right to question the legitimacy of a miniscule drop from 2000 to 2008. I haven’t seen any evidence that people are increasingly becoming unaffiliated in the last decade. What I do see is lots of people who don’t attend Church/Synagogue/Mass even though they ardently claim to be of a certain religion.

    As a liberal and an atheist, I happen to think this trend is a good one. However, I haven’t really seen any trendlines on this. But the 2007 Pew survey shows that only 39% attend any service (including non-Christian) at least once a week. Only 54% go at least once a month. As I’ve said elsewhere, the other 46% are (probably) not living their religion every day. They are, at best, C+E Catholics or Protestants, probably.

    That being said, while I happen to think the drift away from religious services (if that is even what this is) is good in theory. In practice, even I am a little worried about what belief system may replace religion for all these Americans. Being an atheist means one must think long and hard about one’s replacement belief system, but being agnostic means you don’t have to think about it at all. My own belief system tends to mirror certain parts of Christian doctrine, while avoiding others. But I hope all these new agnostics (again, if that’s what is going on) actually give some conscious thought to what they think and believe instead of just lazily thinking nothing. In that respect, at least, we share some anxiety over the effects of a move away from religion.

  • DL80

    http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#

  • mailloux

    You do excellent research and I always look forward to reading your articles.

    I readily concede that the survey you wrote about does indeed show no change in the unaffiliated since 2001. I also was enlightened about your article’s conclusion that the mainstream media are gloating over the results of this survey. To them, any increase in the unaffiliated is a victory in their desire for a de-Christianized United States. I hadn’t thought of this angle. I suspect too that many in the mainstream media see Europe’s de-Christianization as a good thing worthy of imitation.

    And, yes we do agree that despite the survey’s results (and the pew survey’s results as well), a waning of dedicated Christianity (perhaps loosely defined as whether or not day to day moral decision making is driven by one’s faith) seems ongoing. Historically it’s not the first time it’s happened, nor is it the worst case. As in other eras, there always remains a strong remnant of the faithful and often enough from that remnant, leaders emerge who are able to encourage mankind away from the precipice. In Catholic circles there are many fine bishops that are speaking out against the immorality of Obama’s decisions . . . this offers me much hope that there will be an increasing number of voices crying out in the wilderness among Christians of all denominations.

    And that is my “oux’s of mail!”

    Take Care, mailloux

  • Rod_Patrick

    Although I have a different viewpoint.

    Point No. 1:

    “That makes it a faith movement which loses credibility as a movement for legal justice.”

    Response:

    As I see it, your position has been our main strategy all along, since after Roe vs. Wade decision. Many Christian pro-lifers have accepted this strategy and relied that the legal system will find its way to the right path of recognizing the inherent right of the unborn. But the loopholes in the same legal system give undue advantages in debunking the rights of the unborn using arguments, e.g., number of days before a fetus can be considered an “American human life”, etc.

    The very secular legal system that many argue to be based on “common sense” and “natural science” is the same system that defies natural reason in acknowledging that there is a “human life” in every living fetus.

    Point No. 2:

    “Unless you can make an entirely secular argument that requires no faith in any sort of spirit, soul, supernatural power, or afterlife; then you have no valid basis for a law. What?s more, you lose credibility and make matters worse if you attempt to use the law as a vehicle for bringing people to Christ or vice versa.”

    Response:

    You hit the jackpot on this one. This is exactly why modern Christian scholars believe that nowadays, Christians are the most discriminated group in our current social dialogues. This argument somehow implies that our present Legal System was established by a group of “atheist” lawmakers and judges for the sake of “atheist” ideal society.

    But the survey presented by GC in above says that religious people, specially the Christians, still hold the MAJORITY of the Americans. Having said that, the present legal system is now opposed to the belief and values of the very people that constitute the majority.

    It’s unnecessary for me to bring here the lengthy papers of the libertarians and constitutionalists that prove that American Constitution, the foundation of our Legal System, was framed based on the “Belief of God”, if not Christian (or possibly Anglican) values.

    Point No. 3:

    In a broader general sense, Christians should not seek to implement Christian teachings into a law for all society. God?s laws should apply only to those in the church. That was what Paul was talking about in Corinthians when he said we are to be in the world and not of it.

    I think this argument hides the agenda that “Christians” should not teach non-Christians with Christian teachings. But do you realize that the Key Christian Teaching is Evangelism…. teaching the non-Christians with Christianity? We, Christians, are required by our faith to be dynamic and profess our religion to “non-believers”. “Not saying it” is a lie for every Christian. In fact, this is the test to separate real Christians from cultural Christians. If the founding fathers were real Christians, I believe their visions for America would be consistent with this one. The old Letter to the Jews supports this vision. This doesn’t mean that we should support government-mandated “forced Christianization” – that is even not the method of the original apostolic Christians.

    But the irony is this. Your idea of confining the Christian teachings inside the church is the main tool by the liberal atheists to advance their propaganda. Agnosticism, Atheism, and Nihilism, besides being a life philosophy, are also some form of religion (i.e., religion that successfully found that their God doesn’t really exist, etc.) that keep on teaching and advancing their “teachings” outside the church. [religion came from relege which means to seek.]

    This is also consistent with the current rhetorics of the MSM, the Number 1 enemy of the real Christian faith in the 21st century.

    Point No. 4:

    The pro-life cause makes perfect (and even better) sense from a completely secular viewpoint.

    Response:

    Are we succeeding using this strategy? I guess not. I believe that atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians are not reliable supporters of pro-life movement. While the legal/secular justification against abortion may attract some, the majority of them are innately pro-abortion, based on their generally liberal inclinations. I believe that we have invested so much already on this group with minimal results.

    On the other hand, the pro-abortion groups are laughing at us as they succeed in advancing their pro-abortion agenda with many Christians and other religious groups. Malloux and DL80 said something to this effect.

    I think that the previous posts in the above show that a greater number of churchgoers have become more lax and their faith. They may not be pro-abortion, but they will take it aside when pressed by other issues (e.g. liberal Christians). This group are said to be “Cultural” Christians who can go against the teachings of their respective churches. But I don’t blame them. I think that many churches have become less effective in cultivating strong Christian believers.

    My take:

    Trying to un-christianize our pro-life stance has been the Party’s major strategy in the last 30 years. Our Party leaders’ common position is to overturn Roe vs. Wade and, then let the states decide. But this is only a precursor to the actual battle as it will only change the place of the battle from federal to state levels.

    Pro-lifers’ battle doesn’t stop at overturning Roe vs. Wade. In the actual battle at the state levels, we can only win in the solid Red states. The battle in Blue states will most likely be lost.

    So where are now? Simple. FOCA has a great opportunity now to be signed into Law by the Obama Administration. Almost 40% of the Christians voted for Obama, a pro-abortion President (regardless whether he admits it or not; it’s the position of his Party.)

    FOCA may actually win. But by 2012, we can reverse it by ensuring that pro-lifers will take back both the WH and the Congress. I believe that the only force that can fight this thing is a strong coalition of real Christians (Catholics, Protestants, etc.) with the conviction that the “Life of Unborn should be Protected”.

    Of course, support by non-Christian pro-lifers will always be heart warming. And convincing the atheists, etc. of the pro-life position using secular and legal viewpoints won’t hurt either.

    RNC’s first strategy should be on how to win the majority of the Catholics. Pro-life position is the key.

    To make it effective, we need the support of all Christian institutions at all denominations to strengthen their efforts in teaching their congregation the principle of Life: Killing of the unborn is MURDER. Who knows? Even the current crop of democrats in the Congress may vote against FOCA if the Church Leaders can successfully do that right away.

    (I know, the Pope tried it to Speaker Pelosi; but Christian Pelosi may be an exception).

  • mailloux

    This, IMHO, is a brilliant explanation and justification for a renewed Christian coalition. Thank you for this. I wish it were a post in and of itself.

    Take Care, mailloux

  • Rod_Patrick

    Many of the ideas above came from you, steph, DL, and of course, our brothers Menlo and bs. That’s how I interpreted the comments.
    Our conservative leaders are forgetting that while their eyes are fixed on other things, their conservative base is constantly being bombarded by different ideologues.

    I have read the recent speech of the Australian Archbishop re: Christian vs. Multi-culturalism. My understanding is this: If the society is static, multiculturalism may work. But since society is dynamic, one culture/belief will always be pressed or challenged by others.

    In last 30 years, Christians have been the most challenged group in our society. Today, MSM is practically asking all us TO SHUT UP. Sadly, our leaders seem reluctant to acknowledge it.

    ps: I forgot to mention that I’m a baptist. I have to state it since you have honestly stated your affilitation as Catholic. In the secular world, instead of our differences, we should put our attention to him that binds us all…. and he is CHRIST.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Menlo

    Yes, I believe Christians MUST reach out to nonbelievers through evangelism and through our own actions. But we don’t do that by asking people to follow God’s laws BEFORE they even believe in Him. It’s like legislating church attendance. Action in fear of legal punishment would then be meaningless and perhaps even harmful. In the case of killing innocents, we should welcome action done solely in fear of legal punishment.

    So long as it can freely practice and publicly speak out, no church has any business saying what the law should be for everyone else. Even so, I do think it’s laughable that some people think “church leaders” will have one whit of influence on ANY elected official. If any politician ever changes his or her mind, I can guarantee you it will be due solely to accomodate public opinion. Look at all the politicians who used to be pro-life, many of them Catholic. Nearly all of today’s church leaders don’t even keep church members accountable for actions in their personal lives.

    I haven’t seen a big attempt to separate the pro-life position from faith, but that’s largely because of the mainstream media’s portrayal of it as some sort of religious view based on some delusional visions. I think lots of people still see it that way.

    Regardless, I think pro-life people don’t get that the problem is not as much convincing people that abortion is wrong than that it is not a personal matter. It’s not just among oneself, a “doctor,” and God. As it stands, pro-life people fail to distinguish it from a charitable donation or a good deed. It’s about equality in law and justice, NOT generosity. Constitutionally, it’s about a right to life and equal protection, not a state’s right. Looking to “return it to the states” makes no sense where fundamental rights are being violated.

    The biggest problem is that hardly anyone takes it seriously. State and federal law enforcement chose to comply with Roe when the ruling was issued, and it’s been a priority for only about four percent of voters. That’s all it took to show that no one else acknowledged anything even remotely tantamount to murder, and that’s all it took to get the Supreme Court in 1992 say that Roe had proven legitimate and that precedent trumped law. A total lack of political will at the start lost the pro-life movement credibility and support.

  • DL80

    You present some excellent points. Even though I’m pro-choice (which I know amounts to being “pro-abortion”), I really do want there to be fewer abortions. A lot fewer.

    To that end, I wish both sides would do more to actually decrease the number of abortions in this country. I’ll concede that the Democratic Party tends to be ambivalent about this because they do get money from Planned Parenthood. And many (not all) conservative groups are unwilling to work toward anything other than decreasing the number of abortions to zero overnight (through legal changes).

    But there must be some middle ground. Greater (free) access to birth control, greater prenatal support for pregnant at-risk mothers, greater education about the risks of abortion, and a willingness for leaders on both sides of this issue to publicly come together could actually have real impact in decreasing the number of abortions. If that actually worked, and the number were to be substantially decreased, we could then argue about the remaining ones.

    Sorry for the threadjack, but I feel as if no one (on either side) is really invested in tangible results on this topic and it is frustrating. I also see it as a point of potential common ground between me and many commenters here.

  • DL80

    I also think that media members are more likely to be unaffiliated or only pseudo-religious (though I’m not sure why, exactly). This could mean that they look around their own circle of friends and colleagues and see very few devout individuals. Then they find a survey that at least does not directly refute their anecdotal evidence and they say “Aha, see! I knew it!”

    As a member of academe, I often fall into this trap myself. Then I easily believe that somehow the number of religious people is dropping because that seems to be reflected in my own circle of friends and colleagues. However, I do believe the number of devoutly religious individuals is dropping, though that is probably as much a result of continuing urbanization and the concurrent break from small-town communities.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    you oughtta expand it into a full diary.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    And it is the foundation of our sciences, politics, and our whole way of life. Be careful when you celebrate the sloughing off of Christian religion because it will lead to the collapse of all we have and its replacement by … what?

    Cruel will to power politics of the communist or fascist type? Jihadism? New paganism with all the tribal warfare that entails?

    Think about it.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    This needs to be a post so I can recommend it.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    ambivalent means neither for nor against. Are you sure that’s the word you mean? Because the way I see it repealing the Mexico City policy means America is exporting abortions to other countries, funding Planned Parenthood will increase abortions, and passing FOCA will increase abortions. Do you really think this country needs to kill more than a million of its own children every year before they get the chance to breathe their first breath of Earth’s atmosphere? And why do one of three black children need to be killed before they can be born? Isn’t that genocide, thanks to Planned Parenthood and the Democrat party, a truly racist evil?

  • DL80

    Many pro-choice people are either personally against abortion or would only use it as a last resort. They don’t walk around hoping to be able to have an abortion. They don’t hope to make others have an abortion. But many Democratic politicians that otherwise fit the above descriptions are loath to put restrictions on abortion because they receive lots of money from Planned Parenthood. So while they might otherwise be willing to support some (admittedly small) restrictions on late-term abortion, parental notification, etc., they usually won’t because they want the money from PP.

    And ambivalent does not mean “neither for nor against.” It means having two contradictory positions at the same time or being for two opposite positions. “Indifferent” is much closer to your definition.

  • mbecker908

    Oh, and most of the people who lived in Germany in 1932 liked Jews. And I’m reasonably sure most of the Turks were OK with the Armenians. And, as far as I know, the Japanese really have loved the Chinese and Koreans for the last 7000 years or so.

    Sheesh.

  • DL80

    I’m not even sure what this means. Are you saying that pro-choice people hate babies? That seems to be pretty easily refuted. My point is that many Democrats do not like abortion but like the alternatives (every woman forced to bring every baby to term, bans on the birth control pill which can cause spontaneous abortion, etc.) less. That’s my only point. God the righteous indignation meter is off the chart here.

  • DL80

    I find that there are better systems of thinking, at least for me. Kant’s categorical imperative combined with a healthy dose of empathy covers all the parts of Christianity that make sense to me while denying the ones that don’t.

    Not allowed to murder, steal, commit adultery, etc. But masturbating, smoking pot, premarital sex, homosexuality, “impure thoughts” etc. are not inconsistent with this way of thinking. The categorical imperative requires one to view one’s own behaviors as if they were universalized. If everyone did it, how would that affect me? If everyone stealing, murdering, committing adultery would harm me (which it would), then I can not, in good conscience do it.

    But everyone masturbating or smoking pot or having impure thoughts or premarital sex would not negatively affect me, so it is not off limits (not that I do all these things, but I could under my worldview). It’s a logical system that essentially supports the idea that one should not be punished for something that hurts no one else.

  • janis

    Democrat politicians have no moral underpinnings so they place campaign donations over the lives of the unborn every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

    As to your second argument:

    Democrats may not like abortion, but they REALLY don’t like the idea of personal responsibility and impulse control.

    Neither of those is working to put the people you are defending in a better light, you know.

  • Rod_Patrick

    My stand in supporting the life of unborn is actually NOT FOUND in my religion’s sacred book, For me it’s common sense. There is human life in every living fetus.

    But church is a community of people. Laws are made by people for the common goods of the same “people” Is protecting life of unborn biased against the minorities, say non-Christian families? Definitely not. In fact, it favors their sustained existence and even heir proliferation.

    Does advocating for coalition of Christians undermine existing laws? I think not. But SCOTUS rulings uphold the right to association. But I leave it to the lawyers.

    Again, common sense tells us that if we believe that “there is a human life in a living fetus”, then it follows that ‘that human life” has “right to life and equal protection.” By that, I strongly disagree with the statement that the pro-life stand is just like Christian belief for charity. It’s the fundamental right to life of the most innocent that we are fighting for. Killing a fetus, for me, is the denial of “right to life”.

    Finally, I maintain that opposing laws such as FOCA requires broad coalition. We don’t have a broad coalition of Atheists and non-Christians to support it. Only a coalition of Christians, democrats and republicans alike, can thwart such dangerous effort of the pro-abortion “coalition”. In the end, it’s all about numbers game in a government system you’ve termed as “secular.”

  • DL80

    I agree that Democratic politicians are, at times, too beholden to Planned Parenthood. Not only the donations (which not every Democrat takes), but I think too many Democrats buy into the idea that the smallest restriction on abortion will somehow lead to an outright ban. So in that, I think we probably agree. I’m not here to defend either Democratic politicians or Planned Parenthood. I am just interested in some honest discussions.

    I can’t speak for other Democrats as per personal responsibility and impulse control. But I would be willing to concede some restrictions on abortion in exchange for free access to birth control pills to any woman (with age restrictions perhaps) who wants them. If you really want to decrease abortions, and it’s not a smokescreen for wanting to stop people from having sex, I don’t see why this isn’t an avenue to consider. For what it’s worth, pro-choice supporters probably have no interest in any concessions anyway, so it’s mostly a moot point. But I will say that most pro-choice people I know believe that conservatives are more anti-sex than pro-life.

  • Menlo

    I can certainly support that. In terms of numbers, the Christians are more pro-life. As I’ve said elsewhere, it may not make sense, but that’s the way things are. So of course we do need to unite, not only in opposition to bad laws but also in support of laws protecting the unborn. Right now, I’d worry more about repeal of the longstanding Hyde or Dickey-Wicker Amendments than enactment of FOCA as realistic threats that are easier to miss.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    I don’t favor “a smokescreen for wanting to stop people from having sex” myself. I want abortions to stop for several reasons.

    1. much abortion is homicide at least (killing another human without need for self defense) and thus morally repugnant.

    2. abortions psychologically damage women who have them.

    3. abortions are a de-facto genocide among the American black community. This is exactly what Margaret Sanger wanted, by the way.

    4. abortions have caused the US population to be about 50 million lower in the past 47 years than it would have been had no abortions been performed at all. If abortionists hadn’t been so industrious about killing off American babies then maybe business wouldn’t have been tempted to illegally smuggle 20+ million Mexicans across the border to work in their factories and construction sites.

    5. the modal abortive mother in the US is a married woman in her 20s. this means that lots of married women are aborting children. this damages marriages and leads to divorces. just imagine yourself in a marriage where your wife aborted your child. how would you react to her killing the life you and she created together?

    6. doctors had to change the Hippocratic oath in order to allow them to perform abortions and euthanasia. this betrays a millennium of moral tradition for doctors. the change in the oath in order to permit surgery is not equivalent, because with modern hygiene surgery is a safe and reliable form of medicine. on the other hand, abortion, like euthanasia, defines success as killing a human being.

    7. abortion coarsens the culture through its antipathy to human life.

    8. Like most conservatives and like our God, I love people. The more of them the better. Abortion stopping will lead to more babies being born and living long, free, productive, happiness-pursuing lives. This is the last and best reason to oppose abortion, because we love people.

  • mailloux

    I would recommend it.

    Thanks for putting these reasons together. Your summary especially hits the nail on the head, “This is the last and best reason to oppose abortion, because we love people.” Those are poignant words.

    Take Care, mailloux

  • DL80

    This is a great post and I agree with much of it. The point is, if the above are the reasons we really want to decrease/stop abortions, why are we against providing free birth control pills to every woman who is sexually active and does not want a child?

    Obviously it becomes questionable under age 18. But let’s just think about adult women for the time being.

    Yes, condoms are, in many ways, a better choice than birth control pills, for many reasons. STD protection, for one. But condoms are more likely to fail (because users don’t know what they are doing, perhaps). And condoms are never going to be as popular as the pill with men. Ideally, sexually active people who don’t want to get pregnant or an STD should probably use both.

    But birth control pills could be easily and inexpensively provided to sexually active women. Wouldn’t pretty much any cost be worth it to decrease the number of abortions? There would undoubtedly be some women who were too lazy to take the pill or too worried about gaining the extra 5 pounds that some women gain or whatever. But I would have a lot less sympathy for them and I would be less likely to support abortion for them (especially late term).

    I mean, if we really want to decrease the number of women having unintended pregnancies, and their resultant abortions, why is this not even considered?

  • Menlo

    Contraception is widely and freely available. Besides federal funds, there are additional funds in the states and cities where resident abortion is most rampant. See New York City. Look at the UK.

    I am confident, as are most realistic people, that abortions in this country are not the result of lack of access to contraceptives. They are in fact the result of forgetfulness, laziness, lack of desire to use them, or failure to properly use them. We’ve seen clearly that has zero relation to what is or is not taught at the public schools. And there are the unlucky few for whom contraceptives just don’t work.

    The silent majority of pro-life people have no problem with contraception. I think those who voice opposition, attempting to lump abortion and contraception together, damage the credibility of the whole movement. It doesn’t help to always have an illogical lumping together of abortion with issues relating to marriage, sexual deviancy, and “family values.” If the desire were to reduce sexual activity, as some think, then we should be promoting libido-killers.

    On the other hand, touting contraception distracts from the primary goal which is equality. The aim of the pro-life movement is for all people, regardless of faith, to see the unborn the same as the born.

  • mbecker908

    Then you are absolutely as dense as a box of rocks. And this comment is about as morally repugnant as anything I’ve seen.

    …many Democrats do not like abortion but like the alternatives (every woman forced to bring every baby to term… is the precise equivalent of saying you don’t like killing old people when they become a burden but you don’t like saddling either families or society with the cost of their long term care.

    You may think my “righteous indignation meter” is off the chart, but I know your sense of morality and humanity is right up there with Josef Goebbels or Pol Pot. What you and “the Democrats” have done – and want to expand – is the legal denial of humanity and fundamental human rights to unborn human beings (while at the same time extending basically those same “rights” to wolves and other non-humans). That is precisely what the German people allowed the Nazis to do that precipitated the holocaust. Oh, and it’s pretty much what the Democrats in the House and Senate did in 1973 to the people of Southeast Asia when they unilaterally cut off funding to South Vietnam.

    And while we’re at it, don’t even try to serve up the crap sandwich that Democrats don’t “like” or “approve of” abortion. If that was true the first act of Obama’s reign would not have been to eliminate the Mexico Accords and the Democrats wouldn’t be pushing the abomination that is waiting in the wings that will basically make all abortion restrictions against federal law.

    You are in the bloody company of butchers.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    Because I don’t want to be pigeonholed as an abortion blogger. But maybe this is worth giving a chance anyway. After all, it’s true and it’s optimistic, and we need some of that in this country under the present zeroes in charge.

    I’ll leave you with a rhetorical question: How is “First do no harm” in the Hippocratic oath compatible with performing abortion?

  • Lammo

    largely because many forms of “birth control” are abortifacients. That is, they do not prevent conception and actual cause abortions. Another reason is a fairly high rate of ineffectiveness. There is a reason why Planned Death is a major provider of both “birth control” and abortion: abortion, not adoption, not keeping and raising the child, is always their answer to failed “birth control”.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    And yet everybody in America who wants one carries a cell phone. We conservatives believe in self-reliance, respect for the rights of others, and in responsibility for one’s actions. How are these compatible with taking money from someone to pay for someone else’s refusal to act responsibly? What privileges you to take property from someone who obtained it through his own labor and give it to someone else?

    That’s the principled argument. The practical argument is what Menlo said. There are already free contraceptives all over the US in every county, rural, urban and suburban. If you can’t get free contraceptives you aren’t trying. And yet people who look like adults but are mental children still fail to get them or use them.

    At what point do we stop taking on obligations to baby people who can’t be troubled to help themselves? They need to be allowed to fail, so they can learn why they should succeed. Only then will they put aside childish things. Only then will their lives as grown men and women begin.

    Let them eat Carpe Diem! I’ll clap for them when they start to achieve for themselves, and for the kids they decide to raise instead of killing in the womb. Until then, tough love, baby. Tough love.

  • tcgeol

    Why not encourage people to take responsibility for their actions? How hard can it be for people to keep their pants up if conditions aren’t right (like marriage)?

    The government has no business doing any such thing, even if it were a good idea. There is no Constitutional basis or justification for such a program.

  • DL80

    Since nearly 90% of people have had premarital sex, according to studies that go back decades. So yeah, it’s hard (uh, no pun intended). The problem I have is that middle and upper class people don’t get punished (if that’s what we want to do) for having premarital sex because they can easily afford the pill. I’m not talking about any other form of birth control, just the pill.

    The reason I think the pill needs to be more cheaply available is that most men hate condoms. A lot of that is irrational, some of it is the culture, and some of it is an inability to correctly choose and use condoms. The pill puts the entire onus on the woman, unfortunately, but I think it is better than the alternative, which is many unplanned pregnancies.

    I know a lot of people here don’t like the NY Times (and rightfully so considering their very obvious bias), but they have an Op-Ed out today about this very issue. In the last 3-4 years, the cost of the birth control pill, particularly on college campuses has skyrocketed from $5/$10 per month to $40 or $50. I don’t see how that is good for anyone.

    I think if our sex ed classes emphasized condoms and the birth control pill and stopped with all the silly alternatives that almost no one uses (and almost no one uses correctly), we’d have fewer unplanned pregnancies. Especially if women didn’t have to run the potential gauntlet of protesters to get cheap birth control pills from Planned Parenthood.

    Now, if we are hung up on the issue of whether the pill is allowable because it can be an abortifacent, we’re not going to get anywhere and this issue isn’t going to change. I haven’t seen all the surveys, but the ones I’ve seen seem to show that Americans support rights to abortion, but with some restrictions placed on it. I don’t believe the trendlines are going to show that an increasing number of people support an outright ban or full abortion rights without restrictions. So both sides are going to have to work together or it will just stay as is, with lots of unplanned pregnancies and lots of abortions.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/opinion/14sat4.html?ref=opinion

  • Menlo

    I don’t believe anyone, particularly in New York City or the UK, went for an abortion (that costs more and is not always as easily accessible or government funded) because she had difficulty paying for contraceptives. It’s a lie, and anyone who says either more access to birth control or different sex education in the schools will result in fewer abortions is unaware of reality or lying. It doesn’t work, and it won’t work.

    What most Americans want is irrelevant. Anyone who would base his or her position on that is an idiot! They could just as easily want to kill off any other inconvenient class who couldn’t speak for themselves. The majority should never have the right to deny the rights of the minority, especially the right to life, by “choice.”

  • Menlo

    For starters, all contraception has the primary effect of preventing fertilization. Some pose a greater risk of blocking implantation failing the primary effect. Either way, there is no intent to kill. The latter effect, even if intended, would be the equivalent of denying organ donation.

    Perhaps more importantly, the fact is that the word “conception” is defined medically and scientifically as implantation. “Pregnancy” begins only at that point. “Abortion” cannot occur before then, even if human life is destroyed. The Catholic church didn’t like this definition when it was establishished in the 50′s, and many in the church don’t like it now. Whether opposed to contraceptives or not, one should not call any of them “abortifacients.” We need to stick with observable scientific and medical definitions across the board.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    and your response of “I would have a lot less sympathy for them and I would be less likely to support abortion for them (especially late term)” is quite equivocal and lame.

    Should we also provide dildos to the non-sexually active so they remain so?

    smile

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

    If the government wasn’t hellbent on absolving everyone from personal responsibility.

    Other than that, this issue will never ever be solved to the satisfaction of either side. I agree with tcgeol, there is no Constitutional basis for it nor is there a basis that says taxpayers should fund them.

    If you want fair that’s the best I can offer. If you want abortions, pay for them yourselves… or use birth control or keep your pants up. That’s what I call choice. Choice is not forcing everybody who pays taxes to fund your stupidity whether they agree with it or not… and most don’t.