Dear Abby Gone Wild

In recent years, the column known as “Dear Abby” for which generations have trusted in for advice about life, has established a less-than-desirable track record for those who believe in a traditional, Christian worldview. These findings are the result of a recent study by the Culture and Media Institute.

What the heck is wrong with the world?

By Rich Bordner

What the heck is wrong with the world?

I just read a poll that shows that a majority believes Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 in only 9 of the 17 countries surveyed. What is most astounding is the percentage of people in some countries that believe it was an inside job. Look at Mexico's response!!!

Geeeez....I just talked with a colleague at my school yesterday that claimed the U.S is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. What the???

One commentator quipped that its like Al Qaeda is the Rodney Dangerfield of the globe. They claimed they did it, sent videos out claiming responsibility, and folks were cheering on the streets in certain Al Qaeda-heavy countries, and still they don't get no respect!

Seriously, if you think 9/11 was an inside job, you watch waaaaay too much Youtube. That, and Hollywood, rather than commonsense, dictates too much of your thought process.

Democrats and the Housing Mess

If you follow politics at all, you've probably seen the clips of Obama attacking McCain and the Republicans over the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But he's not being very honest with these attacks. The truth is, Bush tried to reform these agencies in 2003, and McCain cosponsored a bill to provide more oversight in 2005. Democrats in Congress killed both attempts.

Ace of Spades has a GREAT post explaining what the Republicans have tried to do about this crisis over the past 5 years, and how the Democrats prevented any meaningful reforms. And don't miss the fact that at least 4 key players in the subprime mortgage industry are now top Obama advisors:

Penny Pritzker, "the Michael Milken of subprime mortgages," is Obama's Finance Chair.

Jim Johnson, disgraced former CEO of Fannie, was Obama's vice presidential search chairman, at least until he resigned under fire due to his role in providing subsidized sweetheart loans to Democratic Senators during his stint at CountryWide.

Franklin Raines, who participated in the accounting scandals to fix Fannie's books and deliver unwarranted bonuses to its top executives, is a top Obama adviser.

Obama Economics Adviser Austan Goolsbee continued defending and lobbying on behalf of the mortgage industry's no-money-down-no-credit-check policies at least until September of 2007.

Finally, Ace mentions that the Democratic Congress plans to adjourn for the season without doing anything to address the issue:

Congress Adjourning! Harry Reid admits he has no idea what to do. So he's packing it up, leaving yet another crisis on the table for more responsible people to figure out.

Actually, Harry Reid and the Democrats always knew what to do. They knew the problem was this trillion dollar giveaway to credit-poor homebuyers. They further knew that by making money for homes so cheap and so artificially plentiful, they were driving up the cost of homes to astronomical levels. That's the way it works -- the more cheap, devalued dollars chasing after goods, the more the good rise in price.

Ultimately people who were simply not credit-worthy enough to buy houses at all were not merely buying houses -- they were buying houses that were well beyond their means to purchase even in a normal market, but furthermore, were inflated in price to double their fair value. So ultimately these legions of bad-credit-risks found themselves paying mortgages valued at 150% or 200% or even more of what their actual homes were worth.

So what did they do? They did what anyone would do: They walked away from the mortgages.

They both hyperinflated the housing market and created the bubble, and put the American taxpayer on the hook for all the excesses they created. And would not check -- because they were too busy appeasing ACORN and taking money from Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and Raines, Johnson, and Pritzker.

They created the housing bubble. They created the financial meltdown -- which occurred, inevitably, when the bubble burst.

And now they want to go home.

For more background on this crisis, check out Investor's Business Daily editorials here and here. In my opinion, IBD is a great source for economic news that doesn't get reported in the mainstream media. If you want to learn more about economic issues--including housing, oil, financial markets, government regulation of the economy--it's a great place to start.

Patriotism vs. Nuance

Bill Whittle is one of my favorite writers. He has put out some really amazing essays on his blog about American exceptionalism, patriotism, the emptiness of the left, etc. (Fair warning--He does occasionally use some rough language.) Just found out he is now writing for National Review and turned out some interesting thoughts about the convention. Read the whole thing--it covers a whole range of issues, from Republican values to Sarah Palin to McCain's time as a POW. But this part brought tears to my eyes:

And a final thing: I had heard before that John McCain had been beaten in prison, and I admired him for it. But when he said he had been broken . . . I gasped. When this sometimes cocky, arrogant old man told me he had once been a cocky, arrogant young man until he was “blessed by hardship,” until he had been broken and remade — and in that remaking discovered a love of country so fierce and pure that even as a patriot myself I will never approach it — well, in that moment John McCain won my heart, to add to the respect and admiration he had already had.

When John McCain told me what I and untold millions of Americans have always believed, what others tell me to be ashamed of and mock me for — that I live in the greatest country in the world, a force of goodness and justice in dark places, a land of heroism and sacrifice and opportunity and joy — to me that went right to the mystic chords of memory that ultimately binds this country together. Some people don’t know what it is, but there is such a thing as patriotism — pure, unrefined, unapologetic, unconditional, non-nuanced, non-cosmopolitan, white-hot-burning patriotism. John McCain loves this country. I love it too. Not what it might be made into someday — not its promise, always and only its promise — but what it was and what it is, a nation and an idea worth fighting and dying for. (italics in the original)

Everything wrong with the left, everything I believe about this country, right there in one paragraph.

A few thoughts on Sarah Palin

By Rich Bordner

Boy, t'ain't there uh mighty buzz about that thar Sarah Palin! I've been listening and watching the past few days, so I figure its a swell time to jump in with a few thoughts of my own. In no particular order:

1) There've been quite a few obviously biased smear attacks on Palin (example: compare the US Weekly covers). The other night at the MTV Music Awards, British host Russell Brand (like his opinion matters) took his own swipe, saying Bristol Palin's child was not a "boy or girl, but a P.R stunt." Things like this are low...very low indeed. But I hope the left and those sympathetic to it keeps it up. I seriously do. If they do, then January 20, John McCain will be taking the oath of office. In the process of their scard-ey-cat antics, they have managed to offend just about everyone except those in their little club. The average American citizen is a sleeping giant to the Dems, and if they continue the smears, they will manage to wake it on November 4...oops.

2) She's intelligent, capable, thoroughly conservative, ATTRACTIVE, and feminine. She appears comfortable being a feminine woman. I like that. Many feminists have trudged about telling us that women must act like men in order to be equal to them. Bullfeathers. Palin trashes this stereotype, and that makes me giggle.

3) Some Democrats are expressing concern about Palin being a mom (especially to a newborn special needs child) and potential V.P. That is a valid concern to raise. Despite what society tells us, you can't have/do it all. The awesome mom/thriving career woman thing is just not feasible. Ask around. Many women have tried, and are frustrated that the day care is raising their children. This doesn't disqualify her for the V.P position by any stretch, but lets not kid ourselves that a mom can feasibly be devoted to a high-demand career and be 100% devoted to raising her children. Life as a parent, as one blogger at Stand to Reason put it, is all about sacrificing your ambition for your family. Have some pulled it off? Probably. Is it feasible/wise? Nope.

4) Giuliani, in response to the questions, quipped that such family and career questions have never been asked about men. Refer to comment #2 and 3. I'm with Melinda at Stand to Reason; it's more natural to ask that question of women than it is to ask it of men. And besides, the question has been asked of men, though not as much. I have asked it about my own career. I haven't seen very many head wrestling coaches/teachers who have been great teachers, have built highly successful wrestling teams, and who have been devoted fathers. In fact, I have seen absolutely 0. Somethin's gotta give. Therefore, I am prepared to give up my dream of coaching a team if it infringes on my family life.

5) HOWEVER, since when has the Democratic party been the party of "family values?" Shouldn't they be the ones cheering the loudest for Palin's choices? Their concern rings hollow, to say the least.

6) Some have leveled a charge of hypocrisy on the Republicans' part. Supposedly, their defense of Palin's family (Bristol's pregnancy, etc) and their insistence on traditional family values are at odds with each other. But this is pure sophistry. One can do a knockout job as a parent, can instill good values in their children, and their children can still go off, sin, and make mistakes. Just because Bristol sinned doesn't mean Sarah Palin is a hypocrite. Bristol is an individual with her own mind. We just don't know how Sarah Palin raised her family, and its stupid to speculate. It would be quite different if Sarah Palin herself became pregnant out of wedlock, but that isn't the case. HELLO? Isn't this obvious? If anything, Bristol's decision about what to do after the pregnancy happened (keep the child, marry the father: two signs of repentance) affirms that mom did something right.

7) Despite Obama's claims, McCain can still play the "no-experience" card. Palin's executive experience is miles ahead of Obama's. Plus: Palin is a V.P. candidate. Obama is the Presidential candidate. Gigundous difference. Can I take my Captain Obvious cape off now?

Anyway, just my two cents.

Teaching Evolution in Florida

The New York Times recently published a profile of a Florida biology teacher who was involved in developing that state's standards for teaching evolution in high school. It's pretty dismissive of people of faith who believe in creation rather than evolution--and that's why I found it an interesting read. It offers some good insight into the liberal worldview that considers Christians to be backwards, anti-science fundamentalists.

For example, Mr. Campbell (the biology teacher) had this to say about the previous standards, which didn't require teaching evolution as the origin of the human species:

But at the inaugural meeting of the Florida Citizens for Science, which he co-founded in 2005, he vented his frustration. “The kids are getting hurt,” Mr. Campbell told teachers and parents. “We need to do something.”

Get that? He believes kids are hurt when they AREN'T taught hard-core evolution. He went on to say, in response to a question about why intelligent design isn't taught along with evolution:

“We also failed to include astrology, alchemy and the concept of the moon being made of green cheese,” he said. “Because those aren’t science, either.”

Another thread running through the article is the importance of knowing how evolution is taught and preparing Christian kids to protect their faith. I remember reading in one of Lee Strobel's books (either The Case for a Creator or The Case for Faith) that high school biology was a major cause in his loss of his childhood faith. I'm not an expert, and I don't claim to have a perfect answer of how to teach the origins of life in public high schools. But, it seems to me that it's not enough to just tell our kids that our faith is Truth and the stuff they learn in science class is some sort of distraction. True, at the end of the day Christianity does require faith--you can't literally prove every tenet of our faith using scientific methods. But it seems to me that providing scientific arguments against evolution, and pointing out the holes in the theory from a scientific standpoint, are important elements of the discussion.

One last thought--I was encouraged by the Christian students quoted in the article, who were holding to their beliefs even as they sat through the classes on evolution:

When the subject of evolution came up at a recent [Fellowship of Christian Athletes] meeting, several of the students rolled their eyes.

“I think a big reason evolutionists believe what they believe is they don’t want to have to be ruled by God,” said Josh Rou, 17.

Wow, he gets it. Not only does he know evolution is wrong, but he knows how the liberal worldview benefits from replacing God with some confused theory about the origin of life.

We're Not all the Same...no, Really Part II

By Rich Bordner

(continued from the previous post)

Why is it when the pulpiteers in education utter certain broad-brush aphorisms, that hardly anyone sees the humor in it? Why is it that few people in education think to speak truth to THAT power?

Here's another silly moment I witnessed at the staff development conference I attended recently. The presenters were waxing eloquent about the necessity of having ambiguity in your classroom discussions and lessons. That is, in your discussions, you should stress that there is no one right answer that you are looking for. There is "more than one way to skin a cat." When the students see that their thoughts will be validated and not "put down," they will buy into the discussion more.

The problem isn't so much that ambiguity is always a vice. The problem is that the presenters lacked balance. Though it was never said, the unqualified aphorisms the presenters made it seem like ambiguity was almost an unmitigated good. In fact, the video they showed for this segment was of a MATH teacher teaching the kids that "there is more than one way to skin a cat." She said in the lesson, "gee, I see a whole lotta different answers here. Which one is wrong? (students pause, then answer "none of them!") "That's correct!" (To her credit, the problem was not a straightforward algebra equation. The problem did lend itself to more than one answer. The issue I take with her was the unqualified application she had.) One presenter even went so far as to say, "When discussing morals and ethics, you as the teacher should not try to steer the discussion towards your own view. You should not impose your view on them. That is the job of their parents and churches and communities. Your job is to lead them in thinking about their OWN viewpoints."

GAH! Where do I start?

Sometimes teachers need to stress that there are, indeed, a range of interpretations that are valid for a certain work of literature (not that anything goes, though). When the issue really IS grey, ambiguity is a virtue. But when the issue is black and white, ambiguity is a vice.

As I said to my fellow colleagues, if I hire an engineer to build me a house, and he comes to me and says, "Gee, um, well, this is such a sticky issue, you see. There's no one right way to build the foundation. We're gonna get creative and wing it," I would promptly fire him. If someone walks into my classroom and doubts whether rape is ok, we aren't going to ponder that viewpoint tolerantly and let him "clarify" his values. We will refer him to the school psychiatrist.

That thought had not occured to ANY of my colleagues. When I said that, they muttered, "hmm...I wasn't looking at it like that. I guess you're right....that's a very ambiguous point, Bordner!" (laughter)

The trick is having the wisdom to discern when ambiguity is a virtue and when it is a vice.

While I'm at it: I'm fairly sure that the educator presenters would quickly drop their "ambiguity" and "values clarification" stance if a student voiced a point of view that threatened the pillars of a relativisitic, secular worldview. In a discussion on homosexuality, if a student stood up and said, "I used to be homosexual, and I was miserable. With the help of Exodus International, I have left the gay lifestyle and have experienced much healing and repentance from that sin," I'm pretty sure the teacher would not allow that value to be clarified. The teacher would probably step in and announce concern that the student wasn't being "tolerant" of gays.

They are only interested in ambiguity when it suits them. Start threatening the cherished worldview of the establishment, speak truth to THEIR power, and its game o-v-e-r.

We're Not all the Same...no, Really

By Rich Bordner

I just finished my first day back at school. Staff reported today, as we attended a day-long staff development workshop with the whole school district (I'm a public high school teacher, by the way). The day was fraught with joys, from seeing old colleague friends to learning something new about teaching to getting 'pumped up' for the upcoming school year. It was a good day on all three counts.

What struck me, however, was just how incredibly liberal the public education establishment is. I don't know why it hasn't hit me until now...denial, perhaps. Not individual teachers or administrators, mind you (though there are definitely a fair share of liberal teachers and administrators roaming around), but the establishment itself.

Education folk are big on diversity. For the most part, this is a good thing, but it can take an ugly twist. At the one point at which you'd think there'd be the most diversity, there's the least: thought and worldview. Most of the day was focused on good teaching strategies, but throughout the workshop, deeper worldview issues and questions came up, questions and issues that most people there didn't stop to ponder. Most just accepted the left leaning answers without thought, because its what they've been taught to think and believe by institutions of higher learning.

When these deeper worldview issues crept to the surface today, what I heard from the pulpit was incredibly predictable and stereotypical.

An example: we watched a filmed interview of several Latino fifth graders in a local elementary school. Most of the parents of these fifth graders, presumably, had entered into the U.S illegally. The interviewer asked the kids, 'what do you feel when you hear the phrase 'illegal alien'?' The kids responded, 'like everyone hates us, like they think we're dirty and don't want us here.' There was more to the interview, but the view the students communicated was clear: if you are against illegal immigration, you are prejudiced and don't believe in freedom. People have an unmitigated right to come to America.

Next, the film showed these same students 'taking on' an old, old (and I mean old), white male with a thick southern accent on the subject of illegal immigration (This man was actually the librarian of the school). The man went on and on about how illegal immigration needs to be curbed because of the trash and litter they bring: 'when I chew gum, I don't spit it on the floor.'

The students were all over him...when he actually tried to make an economic argument, they interrupted him. Afterwards, the presenters praised the kids for 'speaking truth to power.'

Oy...it's almost like the interviewers went out of their way to find a strawman to oppose the students, as if they said, 'hey, we need someone to represent the conservative viewpoint. Hey, you, you're old, and you're white..reeeeal white...so far so good. Say a few words ('howdy pardner!'). Great..you'll do.'

And about 'speaking truth to power.' Power sometimes corrupts...true. And it sometimes needs to be opposed...true. But I can't help but feel that power gets a bad rap these days. After all, Churchill needed a certain amount of power to bring down the Third Reich. Speaking truth to THAT power would go something like: 'great job..thanks bro...keep it up.'

Anyway, I was amused at the uniformity of worldview the different presenters had.

(Photo courtesy of Pyromaniacs blog at www.spurgeon.org/~phil/posters.htm)

Democrats' Moral Confusion

I know I've posted a lot about abortion lately, but I just keep finding good articles. It is a pretty big political issue and it is a presidential election year, so I guess that explains it. Anyway, Newsweek actually posted a web article that is a pretty solid presentation of the pro-life side of the debate, and how this issue affects the Democratic party. It's a good read:

Throughout this lengthy campaign, the Democratic Party has worked hard to present itself as the party of intellect, competence and moral seriousness. Yet it's off to a very rocky start in addressing the substance of the abortion issue—which remains, 35 years after Roe v. Wade, one of the most volatile in our public life. Talk this week by Democratic leaders about lowering the incidence of abortion in America will rightly be welcomed by pro-life Democrats, including the large number of pro-life African-American Democrats. But the recent public record has to make committed pro-lifers of both parties wonder just how serious the Democratic leadership is about engaging the abortion debate.

The part of the article that caught my eye is about Nancy Pelosi:

Then there are the multiple confusions of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In her "Meet the Press" appearance Aug. 24, Pelosi was asked by Tom Brokaw whether she agreed with Senator Obama's statements on abortion at Saddleback. Pelosi, declaring herself an "ardent, practicing Catholic," told Brokaw that "this is an issue that I have studied for a long time"—and then got herself into a deep muddle, in which she seemed to confuse St. Augustine with St. Thomas Aquinas (neither of whom, in any case, knew anything about modern embryology); misrepresented the settled (and scientifically informed) judgment of the Catholic Church on when life begins by declaring it an open question, and concluded by suggesting that none of this really makes a difference, because what the scientists, theologians, and philosophers say "... shouldn't have an impact on a the woman's right to choose." The Speaker then misrepresented the legal impact of Roe v. Wade, arguing that the Supreme Court hadn't created a right to "abortion on demand"—which will come as news to those on both sides of the ongoing debates over partial-birth abortion and other late-term abortion procedures, parental- and spousal-notifications laws and regulatory oversight of abortion clinics.

Democrats who had hoped to persuade a good number of evangelicals and Catholics to return to their traditional 20th-century political home in November 2008 cannot be very encouraged by such intellectual disarray on the part of their party's senior federal official. For more than three decades, the abortion license created by the high court in Roe v. Wade has been an important factor in determining American voting behavior—in more than a few instances, the decisive factor. Yet, judging by her performance on "Meet The Press" (which seemed to surprise the usually unflappable Tom Brokaw), the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives is as ill-informed on the scientific and legal facts involved in the abortion debate as she is of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Speaker Pelosi is, like most "ardent, practicing" Catholics, a great admirer of the late Pope John Paul II. Was John Paul wrong, one wants to ask Speaker Pelosi, when he wrote in the 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae [The Gospel of Life] that "abortion ... always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being"? Was he wrong when he further stated that this moral truth could be known by reason, and was thus a matter of grave concern to public policy?

Obviously I understand that not everyone in this country is a practicing Christian and so not everyone will have the same moral stance on abortion that I do. But I find it beyond comprehension that someone like Nancy Pelosi (or Joe Biden) could claim to be an ardent, practicing Catholic and still support abortion. I guess it just demonstrates how confused and twisted their worldviews have become.

Why does world view matter?

Michael Medved at Townhall on the importance of worldview in the presidential race:

Barack Obama acknowledges the existence of evil – but the three examples he cited in the televised Saddleback Forum with Rick Warren involved child abuse and street crime here in the United States, as well as the violence in Darfur. He never even mentioned Islamo-Nazi terror as the most obvious and menacing evil of our time – a form of monstrous depravity that elevates suicide, and the slaughter of innocent children, into a holy act.

More than any American leader since Reagan, McCain emphasizes the moral dimension in international conflict, and the importance of core values. And like Reagan, he understands that evil must be called by its name and, ultimately, defeated.

You should also check out this related Hugh Hewitt post on moral equivalence:

Here's what Obama said yesterday about China:

Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics , Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a coporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option."

On many levels, this bit of Obama oratory is as troubling as Obama's moral equivalence posture on the invasions of Georgia and Iraq. Obama's praise for China's Olympics building binge ignores how those structures were assembled, the source and conditions of the labor, the lack of pollution controls in Beijing and throughout China, the many complaints that Chinese infrastructure outside the Olympics zone remains shoddy, the recent record of Chinese manufacturing scandals, including the heparin fiasco which killed many Americans, and of course the catastrophe brought about by Chinese building standards in the region rocked by the recent earthquake.

Obama: Lying about Abortion

I wrote here about Barack Obama's position and actions with respect to abortion. Frankly, I don't understand how any evangelical Christian could vote for him on this issue alone, but of course that is my opinion. Anyway, there is some controversy about the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and his position on that bill. Here's what Obama told CBN (video at the link):

And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.

So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.

To put it bluntly, I believe Obama is the one who's lying here, because he knows that the truth will hurt him with a lot of voters. He voted against a bill protecting infants who survive an abortion while in the Illinois Senate. I don't understand how he thinks he can pretend that didn't happen. Please, check out the facts for yourself and make sure you know what is going on here.

David Freddoso reviews the relevant bills and votes in detail and comes to this conclusion:

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.

One more thought--Saturday night, Obama and McCain both appeared at Saddleback Church and answered questions from Rick Warren. I have my differences with Warren's theology, but it sounds like he asked some interesting questions (for example, does evil exist and what should we do about it?). You should definitely read some coverage of the event and the candidates' answers to faith & values questions (including this from Victor Davis Hanson, highlighting Obama's postmodern worldview: "There are no absolutes, just nuances and contexts that preclude certainty."). The question that is relevant to this post is this:

When asked "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?," McCain answered "At the moment of conception." Obama's answer here was flaming-dirigible bad:

Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.

Transcripts for both candidates at Saddleback church are available here.

Soul Searching part 4: MTD revisited

By Rich Bordner

(continued from here)

I quote Smith and Denton at length...hang in there, this quote is well worth reading in its entirety:

Adults in the United States over the past many decades have recurrently emphasized what separates teenagers from grown-ups, highlighting things that make each of them different and seemingly unable to relate to each other. But our conversations with ordinary teenagers around the country made clear to us, to the contrary, that in most cases teenage religion and spirituality in the United States are much better understood largely reflecting the world of adult religion, especially parental religion, and are in strong continuity with it. Few teenagers today are rejecting or reacting against the adult religion into which they are being socialized. Rather, most are living out their religious lives in very conventional and accommodating ways. The religion and spirituality of most teenagers actually strike us as very powerfully reflecting the contours, priorities, expectations, and structures of the larger adult world into which adolescents are being socialized. In many ways, religion is simply happily absorbed by youth, largely, one might say, by osmosis...

However, it appears that only a minority of U.S teenagers are naturally absorbing by osmosis the traditional substantive content and character of the religious traditions to which they claim to belong. For, it appears to us, another popular religious faith, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, is colonizing many historical religious traditions and, almost without anyone noticing, converting believers in the old faiths to its alternative religious vision of divinely underwritten personal happiness and interpersonal niceness...we can say here that we have come with some confidence to believe that a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually only tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but has rather substantially morphed into Christianity's misbegotten stepcousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. This has happened in the minds and hearts of many individual believers and, it also appears, within the structures of at least some Christian organizations and institutions. The language, and therefore experience, of Trinity, holiness, sin, grace, justification, sanctification, church, Eucharist, and heaven and hell appear, among most Christian teenagers in the United States at the very least, to be supplanted by the language of happiness, niceness, and an earned heavenly reward. It is not so much that U.S Christianity is being secularized. Rather more subtly, Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by a quite different religious faith.

Soul Searching part 3: whatevah

By Rich Bordner

(continued from here)

In reading Soul Searching, I saw (and this is something that the authors note as well), that while many teens might say in a survey that religion is very or somewhat important to them, you get a totally different impression when you listen to them talk: even for many who go regularly to conservative, Bible-believing Protestant churches, it's just not that important to them, or that the adults in their lives don't help them think about and express their faith.

In fact, in the interviews, Smith and Denton noted that quite a few times their interview was the first time an adult had asked them what they believe spiritually. They found that religion in the home, typically, is not a source of conflict or friction simply because it is almost never talked about. (Keep in mind that most of these are teens who identify as religious, who go to church at least somewhat regularly (2-3 times a month at least). Very few identified as "not religious.") This led to the vast majority of teens being incredibly inarticulate in their faith.

Here are some examples from the interviews. These examples are not outliers or exaggerations; they represent typical statements. When asked what their religious/spiritual beliefs are, some responded with:

--"Uh, I haven't really thought about that (pause). I don't know."
--"Just, like, um, what they taught me, what I grew up knowing, I don't know."
--"I believe in the (pause), I, ohhh (pause), I don't think I'd really like to talk about that."
--"I don't remember."
--"Hm, I don't know, I'd have to like ask somebody or something, I don't know."

Here's what one 15 year-old white mainline Protestant girl from Michigan said. Note that she attends two church services every Sunday, Sunday school, youth group, and Wednesday night Bible study. (T: teen. I: interviewer):

T: "(Pause) I don't really know how to answer that."
I: "Are there any beliefs at all that are important to you? Really generally."
T: "(Pause) I don't know."
I: "Take your time if you want."
T: "I think that you should just, if you're gonna do something wrong, then you should always ask for forgiveness and he's gonna forgive you no matter what, 'cause he gave up his only son to take all the sins for you, so."

The following interview section from a white 14 year-old conservative Protestant girl displays a lack of enthusiasm that the authors noted is present in many of the teens they interviewed:

I: "When you think of God, what image do you have of God?"
T: "(Yawn)"
I: "What is God like?"
T: "Um, good. Powerful."
I: "Okay. Anything else?"
T: "Tall."
I: "Tall?"
T: "Big."
I: "Do you think God is active in people's lives or not?"
T: "Ah, I don't know."
I: "You're not sure?"
T: Different people have different views of him."
I: "What about your view?"
T: "What do you mean?"
I: "Do you think God is active in your life?"
T: "In my life? Yeah."
I: "Yeah, hmm. Would you say you feel close to God or not really?"
T: "Yeah, I feel close. (Yawns.)"
I: "Where do you get your ideas about God?"
T: "The Bible, my mom, church, Experience."
I: "What kind of experience?"
T: "He's just done a lot of good in my life, so."
I: "Like, what are examples of that?"
T: "I don't know."
I: "Well, I'd love to hear. What good has God done in your life?"
T: "I, well, I have a house, parents, I have the Internet, I have a phone, I have cable." (emphasis added)

True story...true story.

When asked how their faith affects their lives, some teens mentioned things that are pretty peripheral to the historic Christian faith, like not getting tattoos, cursing, why the sky is blue (I kid you not), and music tastes. Smith and Denton note that the teens tended to have to grope pretty hard for something that showed that religion/spirituality is important to them...this "groping" is evidence that it is, in fact, not that important to them, not that the sky being blue is really a momentous thing to them.

The authors state: "In the end, many teenagers know abundant details about the lives of favorite musicians and television stars or about what it takes to get into a good college, but most are not very clear on who Moses and Jesus were. This suggests that a strong, visible, salient, or intentional faith is not operating in the foreground of most teenagers' lives."

As I mentioned in past posts, its not helpful to paint any section of America with an overly broad brush. Teenagers, just like every other sector of the U.S, are diverse and varied in their lives and views. A select few were able to express their views well. But the authors noted a strong, strong trend in the other direction, sometimes in places that you wouldn't expect.

Soul Searching part 2: Feeling Happy

By Rich Bordner

(read part 1 here)

If you want to know what interests a person, listen to how they talk; what kind of language do they use? How often do they say certain catch-phrases?

This is somewhat of an obvious observation, but many times we miss the obvious: a person's language reflects what's really on their mind and heart.

So, in matters of religion/spirituality, how do teens talk? In their interviews, authors Smith and Denton tracked the number of times their interviewees made reference to certain subjects of interest. Very few made reference to "historically central religious and theological ideas."

Here are some of those central theological ideas, with the number of teens that mentioned them (they did not need to say the phrase specifically for it to count...making a vague reference to the belief was enough). Remember, these are out of 267 interviews, and the authors argue that their findings with teens mirror the religious/spiritual lives of adults in America:

47-Personally sinning or being a sinner
13-Obedience
12-Repentance
9-Love for God
6-Salvation
5-Resurrection of the dead
5-Kingdom of God (2 Christian, 3 Mormon)
3-God's grace
3-The Bible as holy
3-Honoring God
3-Loving one's neighbor
2-God's justice
0-Self-discipline
0-Working for social justice
0-Being justified
0-Sanctification

What were the most popular things mentioned?

112-Personally feeling, being, getting, or being made happy
99-Feeling good about oneself or life
92-Feeling better about oneself or life
26-Feeling personally satisfied or enjoying life satisfaction
21-Being or feeling personally fulfilled

Anyone see a problem with this?

The authors state: "When teenagers talked in their interviews about grace, they were usually talking about the television show Will and Grace, not about God's grace. When teenagers discussed honor, they were almost always talking about taking honors courses or making the honor roll at school, very rarely about honoring God with their lives. When teens mentioned being justified, they almost always meant having a reason for doing something behaviorally questionable, not having their relationship with God made right."

They continue: "Note that these are not total number of times that teenagers used a word or phrase, but simply the number of teens who used them. In fact, our teenagers used the single, specific phrase to "feel happy" well more than 2,000 times.

Wow....Parents, adults, youth leaders, pastors: I call that a gauntlet.

Will we pick it up?

The Church of England: Another Step Toward Irrelevance

The Archbishop of Canterbury once again contributes to the decline of his own church in the name of tolerance:

Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.

Dr Rowan Williams also criticised Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles.

His comments came in a highly conciliatory letter to Islamic leaders calling for an alliance between the two faiths for 'the common good'.

But it risked fresh controversy for the Archbishop in the wake of his pronouncement earlier this year that a place should be found for Islamic sharia law in the British legal system.

James Lileks is dead on about why this is a problem (scroll down about 2/3 of the way):

He would probably be seconded on that point by this fellow [the Archbishop of Canterbury], who I expect will name an atheist as his successor, as part of an outreach program to attract people uncomfortable with the whole “God” part of religion. There really isn’t any reason to set the bar that high, you know. In his latest missive, he has acknowledged that parts of Christianity may “offend” Muslims, which is a fascinating choice of words. It puts doctrinal differences into the realm of emotional reaction, and as we all know “offence” must be followed with apologies and seminars and outreach and an hour of steady banging of the head on the hard marble floor. No one has the right to give offense, but everyone has the right – indeed, the obligation – to be offended by something.

It’s the natural end result of elevating tolerance above all else: eventually you are intolerant of the things in which you once believed, because they are theoretically offensive to those who have no interest in the maintenance of your traditions. In the end, traditions are just social constructs used to impose social order; best if we do away with them anyway.

[Plus, Lileks has the best metaphor ever for the decline of the Brits: "Meanwhile, over in Blighty: every day brings another story that suggests they could power the lights on the Strand by harnessing the RPMs of Churchill’s corpse." I love that creativity!]

Obviously Lileks is dripping with sarcasm here, but he’s right. If you’re willing to give up the core of our religion because someone might be offended, what do you really believe in? It is very troubling to me that the supposed leader of one of the largest churches in the world is so eager to set aside the cornerstone of his faith, or at least what should be the cornerstone of his faith, to achieve some sort of amorphous goal of peace, tolerance and social/environmental justice.

Soul Searching part 1: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

By Rich Bordner

In their book Soul Searching, sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Denton write on a national survey of the religious lives of American teenagers. In the course of their research, their team surveyed over 1,200 teens from all over the U.S, and personally interviewed 267 of those surveyed.

What they found was somewhat surprising, somewhat not.

On the surprising front, they found that, contrary to the stereotype, the overwhelming majority of teenagers are not rebellious in their religious beliefs and practices. Rather, they are very conventional when it comes to religion; they are quite content to just go along with what they've been raised to believe.

Encouraging? No, not really, because the authors found that what they are raised to believe is a quite paltry version of Christianity: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

1. A God exists who created the world and watches over humans.
2. God wants people to be nice and good.
3. The purpose of life is to be happy and feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be very involved in one's life except when He's needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven.

While none of those interviewed explicitly stated this creed (as I'll write about in a later post, most of them couldn't explicitly state any religious beliefs whatever. Some had difficulty with even comprehending the question "what are your religious/spiritual beliefs?"), their feelings on spirituality boiled down to it.

While some teens they interviewed were able to rise above this, and while a select few (very, very few) rejected religion wholesale and preferred instead to think, feel, and talk like Christopher Hitchens disciples, "Christian" Moralistic Therapeutic Deism functioned as the bottom line, unquestioned worldview of a substantial majority of those interviewed to the point where asking them to question those notions was like asking them to question 2+2=4.

M.T.D, obviously, is not Christian, yet, the authors argued, it functions as a parasite on the historic Christian faith. Even many of those raised in "devoted" Christian homes, who are leaders in youth groups, faithfully attending conservative (as opposed to mainline) protestant churches, hold this view.

You might ask, "How could a teen who is raised by devoted Christian parents, who faithfully attends a Bible-believing church, and who is a leader in the youth group, swallow this sham almost wholesale?" The answer is: very easily, given the pervasive, subtle, yet corrosive influence of our culture on the young. With a proliferation of digital media flooding into American homes (TV, iPods, the web, cell phones, etc), plus the nature of public schooling, this is very hard to avoid if adults do not persistently and consistently engage and teach the young....and that is exactly what is NOT happening. Rather than being intentional about teaching them solid biblical truth, many prefer instead to just "expose" teens to Jesus.

The proliferation of this worldview amongst teens is a new phenomenon, something that has popped up on the social and religious scene in the last 30 years or so, and it is a phenomenon that mirrors the young adult and adult world. Therefore, in the next few posts, I will be commenting on it and drawing implications for Christ-followers today.

Hats off to the Anchoress

I know I link to the Anchoress a lot, but she’s one of my favorite bloggers. And right now she’s really on a roll.

First, here’s an interesting post on the tendency of Americans to picture themselves as victims, contrasted with advice on acting like an adult.

Then there’s this, on Obama’s recent statement that all Americans really ought to learn Spanish, because it’s so embarrassing to him that American tourists go to France and all they can say is “merci beaucoup” (note that’s French, not Spanish, so it’s not clear how his suggestions that we ought to learn Spanish would help!):

Sophistication is empty and insubstantial. It does not save lives. It does not free people. Sophistication simply dresses well and knows not to choose the chianti. All very important in these serious times, right?

You should definitely read the whole thing--it's dead on.

Political Potpourri

Edition 2 of our new semi-regular roundup of newsworthy items...

Yet another installment in the slow and disturbing decay of Western values in the United Kingdom:

Muslims have complained over a police advert featuring a puppy sitting in an officer's hat. A police force has apologised to Islamic leaders for the "offensive" postcard advertising a new non-emergency telephone number, which shows a six-month-old trainee police dog named Rebel.

Horrors continue in Zimbabwe, and no one seems to quite be able to muster the courage to do something about it:

The supposedly civilised world has allowed Mugabe and his horrors to happen, mainly unchecked. Sanctions on his country merely starve those who disagree with him. Zimbabwe has all the natural, and had all the human, resources to be an example to the rest of Africa. It is now merely a symbol of what happens when a dictator takes charge, and those who might rein him in simply look away.

The guy who came up with the whole national health care system in Canada now thinks it was a bad idea:

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

In Obama news, the Boston Globe has done some high-quality investigative reporting into some pretty shady dealings in Chicago. It's a lengthy discussion of the complete failure of public housing in Obama’s Illinois state senate district, managed under programs he supports and by people involved in his campaigns, including Tony Rezko.

And at least one commentator is worried about what an Obama presidency might mean for individual freedoms in the United States. Jeffrey Lord writes:

Pull back for a moment from the day-to-day and see the pattern.

Talk radio. Oil. Guns. Global warming. Smoking.

On the surface this is a seemingly unconnected laundry list of issues, their connection one to another tangential at best. Or is it?

In the increasingly disturbing view we are all getting of the messianic world that is Obamaland, these subjects in fact have a chilling commonality.

Remember, it's not only the freedoms listed in the first and second amendments that make this country great. As a conservative, I also value the freedom to spend my time and money the way I want to, to be in control of my own health care, to make (currently hypothetical) decisions about my (future) children's schooling, etc. And if I want to use my own money to heat my house to 72 degrees (I don't) or drive an SUV (I do!), the government really ought to stay out of my way. You know, it's that whole crazy thing about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... seems like maybe I read that somewhere... might be an important part of the founding of our country or something... anyone?

Freedom Isn't Free

OK, I know it's a bumper-sticker cliche. But it's still true. The freedoms we have in this country, freedom of speech, worship, association, the press, the right to bear arms--they were all won and preserved at a high cost. And we have to continue to protect those freedoms today.

Here's an excerpt from a really good post on protecting our freedom. You should definitely read it all:

For those of you have yet to see 300, do yourselves a favor and see it. (Warning: Spoiler Alert if you read the whole linked post.)

This movie is not just about the past. It's about today. Right now.

It's about each one of you who stands in the breach against the enemy.

And it's about each one of you who stands against the enemy within, who would happily widen that breach.

Today's enemy is Islamofascism, but it is little different from the hordes following the tyrannical King Xerxes.

Today's enemy within is the left, both at home and across the globe. And they too are little different from the scheming legislator Theron and the vile Ephori, who were willing--even eager--to see all Sparta kneel before Xerxes, just to gain power.

How is the left today any different? Do they not see their own nation, their own people, their own military as the enemy? Do they not seek to withdraw us from the field, to give the enemy the day?

And just as Sparta was the lynchpin that defended all Greece--that great cradle of democracy--is not the United States today the last bastion of freedom defending Western civilization?

But what care the left for Western civilization? They HATE Western civilization. They hate the men and women who defend it. They hate themselves.

It's a great read, maybe put a little strongly but with some very good points about the value of freedom, about the need to protect our civilization against tyranny. (Please note, though, that I'm not necessarily recommending actually seeing the movie. I haven't seen it, and I think it's pretty violent, so you should definitely make that decision for yourself based on how you feel about that kind of content. But it sounds like a really good story!)

Totalitarian Times?

Just read a really interesting (and long) article by Bruce Bawer about the way the New York Times has approached reporting on totalitarian regimes and ideas. Definitely worth a read, because we all need to understand the way that the news media can shape our understanding of the world by selective reporting of events. We also need to know what worldview they are putting forth.

Bawer reviews NYT reporting on Stalin, Hitler, Castro, and the Cambodian killing fields, tying it into current coverage of Islamic fundamentalists. Here's a few paragraphs:

Since 9/11, the kind of brazen sugarcoating of Islam that Feldman served up last Sunday has become a convention in the Times and other mainstream media. Routinely, news organizations suppress, downplay, or misrepresent developments that reflect badly on Islam; they go out of their way to find stories that reflect (or that can be spun in such a way as to reflect) positively on it; and they publish professors and intellectuals and “experts” like Feldman, who share the media’s determination to obscure the central role of jihadist ideology in the current clash between Islam and Western democracy and to point the finger instead (as Feldman does) at European racism.

Yet while a number of media consumers are wise to this policy regarding Islam, relatively few realize that it’s a fresh variation on a well-established tradition. This tradition -- which may be fairly characterized as one of solicitude, protectiveness, and apologetics when reporting on totalitarian ideologies, movements and regimes -- involves habitual practices that can be attributed partly to institutional stasis, passivity, and timidity, partly to a desire to maintain access to this or that tyrant, partly to profound failures of moral insight and responsibility, partly to inane notions of “fairness” and “balance,” partly to an unwillingness to face aspects of the real world that need to be acknowledged and dealt with, and partly to an inability to grasp (or, perhaps, to face the fact) that the status quo has changed.

One of the key points here is that modern, multicultural notions of fairness and tolerance lead some people to excuse horrifying, amoral behavior. But read the whole thing, because there's a lot more information there than in this brief comment!