Saturday, March 04, 2006

Conservatives Will Inherit the Earth

Demographer Says Religious, Cultural Conservatives on the Rise

By Mark Adams

"Conservatives will inherit the earth" according to the cover story of the current edition of Foreign Policy magazine which argues that families that adhere to traditional morality are likely to make up a significant portion of future generations because they are producing more children.

In the "Return of Patriarchy," Phillip Longman argues that the "great difference in fertility rates between secular individualists and religious or cultural conservatives augurs a vast, demographically driven change in modern societies." Looking at polling data from Europe, Longman, a senior fellow at the left-of-center New America Foundation, notes that "how many children different people have, and under what circumstances, correlates strongly with their beliefs on a wide range of political and cultural attitudes." Those Europeans who "distrust the army," accept "soft drugs, homosexuality, and euthanasia," and "seldom, if ever, attend church . . . are far more likely to live alone, or in childless, cohabitating unions, than those" who hold opposite opinions.

Some may argue that the children of parents who believe in traditional morality can reject that morality just as the children of 1960s largely rejected the pervasive social norms of the day. Longman says there is a key difference. " . . . during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of modern societies married and had children. . . . disparity in family size between the religious and the secular was not so large, and childlessness was rare. Today, by contrast, childlessness is common, and even couples who have children typically have just one. Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society."

Longman's article is particularly concerned with explaining why patriarchal families have historically been necessary for the survival of society. "No advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it," Longman writes. What marks patriarchal societies, according to Longman, are "customs and attitudes that collectively serve to maximize fertility and parental investment in the next generation. Of these, among the most important is the stigmatization of 'illegitimate' children. One measure of the degree to which patriarchy has diminished in advanced societies is the growing acceptance of out-of-wedlock births, which have now become the norm in Scandinavian countries, for example."

But Longman takes pains to make it clear that patriarchy does not mean misogyny nor should it be associated with "Taliban rebels or Muslim fanatics in Nigeria stoning an adulteress" which he describes as "examples of insecure societies that have degenerated into male tyrannies" that do not "represent the form of patriarchy that has achieved evolutionary advantage in human history."

Copyright 2005 - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

Read the entire article here.

1 comment:

Regan said...

Well Hello Christine,
I'm one of the regulars at ex gay watch.
And you threw in a challenge there. I thought I'd cruise by here and see what you were up to and look at your blog before I left any messages.

There are two things that I've noticed about those who use the words 'gay activist' and 'indoctrination'.
Or other common words like 'homosexual agenda' or 'sin'.

One: only heterosexual people use those words.

Two: no gay person I ever knew (and there are many) or any who told about themselves didn't learn to be gay from a book or anyone else.
We can reasonably assume there is no more calculation in being gay than being heterosexual.

Having said that. Those who are religious have ALL learned what they believe from a book. A very ancient book with many tellings and retellings in that time.

I found it suspect from the outset because women didn't contribute as writers or as any of the enlightened contributors to it's existence.

I didn't require said book to inform me that in ALL of nature, there are no absolutes in gender, color, language, families or sexual orientation.
One only have to look around at the truth that no one of us is the same, nor can be.
It's plain to see that nature has plenty of inverses and human (and some animal) sexuality is no exception and never was.
And certainly no human being can have dominion over another-although such behavior is described in Scripture as slavery and the subjugation of women.

Gender and how one behaves because of one's gender is fluid, changing and not conditional on gender, but individuality.

I don't appreciate and American woman, born to the privilege and protection of the Constitution, deciding that what they learned through and ancient text, is suddenly their license to indoctrinate others as they have of that book and deny other human beings of their ability to function equally to themselves in public society.

You are not silenced as a Christian.
What the problem is, you don't know when to politely give someone else an opportunity to give testimony of THEIR own lives and the importance of being known.
The truth can only come from honesty.
And gay young people are intimidated from giving the full flower of who they are and their goals and needs.
Whatever you have to say about gay people isn't news.
You've had your turn, it's someone else's time now.
So, at least for some more time-let gay young people be able to live without fear and ignorance.
You can't know a truth, you don't listen to from the other side.

Piety is nothing, if it's fed by fear, violence and ignorance and in the meantime...a gay child contemplates suicide, is assaulted or abandoned by their own parents.
And worse yet, is denied the full protection and access the Constitution and Bill of Rights owes them.
YOU have religious freedom Christine, but not at the expense of a gay child's happiness and security with their lives.
That is why our Founding Fathers set boundaries for religious control.

Thanks for stopping by ex gay watch.
But we don't need sermons. Most of us have heard the same and read the same you have. If you have nothing new to say. I wouldn't bother.
What you think you know about gay people, pales in comparison to what gay people know themselves. You're in no position to deny what gay people know or what even I know about gay people.

I don't like having your indoctrination shoved down MY throat.
The difference between you and me is, I believe gay people, don't fear them and have no reason to.
You and those who believe as you do keep claiming YOU are the only custodians of The Truth.
But you're the only ones saying that, and I don't see anything but another flawed and undoubtedly mortal person just like myself.
Tell you what.
When gangs of gays and lesbians take one of your pretty Christian children and verbally abuses them so severely they consider suicide, or maybe their badly mutilated dead bodies are found on a regular basis, then YOU can complain.

You are doing EXACTLY the worst possible thing a person could do to make me believe they are truthful.
Why, why should I believe YOU?