Ho boy - half way through "How the West Really Lost God," and it already strikes to the heart of the culture wars - and clears, for me at least, why the sides on the debate have certain attitudes toward the family. Eberstadt, the author, has already shown that it is not only that religious families have more children, but that people with firm families with children are more religious. There is something about the traditional family, she is veering, that makes them become religious, and she will soon show us why. However, at this point we have enough to work with to get into deep trouble with political ideologues. For instance: as abortion and contraception are generalized, people have less children, and so are less religious. Without family and later, children, people are forced more and more to look to outside institutions for support in times of unemployment, sickness, and old age. Without religion, that institution would be the state. Thus we have set the table for the culture wars we see in this country. Simply put (and in this, not all bases are covered), for those who believe that the state should supply people with the necessities, their natural enemy would be religion, and by relation, the traditional family. The converse would also be true - the religious would want - beyond the dogma of their church - a strengthened church, and a concomitant weakened state. If we were forced to simplify these warring factors as such, could it be any clearer?
What is interesting is that this cuts across dogmatic lines. Only Catholics are forbidden to use the standard birth control devices and drugs - and yet those of other religions have more children than the non-religious. From another angle, feminists are ostensibly about women's liberation or equalization (as they see it), yet are more often than not in favor of state control over voluntary religious control. Atheists, who are supposed to be for a rational approach to the "superstition" of God, are also universally, as far as I know, for the liberalization of what is meant by "family" - and supportive of state control. The pieces of the puzzle fit remarkably well from her perspective - which has made me think: is her perspective as new as she thinks?
There is on my satellite radio a religious program called "Focus on the Family" which sees precisely the relationship between family and religion in just the sort of feed-back loop that our author does. I have further to go in the book, but how much more can she show the relationship of family and religion than this program? On the Family channel, the idea is precisely this: that a successful family is about self-control and obligation, as well as love - which in turn creates children with that same attitude towards the world - which creates people ready to voluntarily sacrifice money, effort, and certain pleasures to become members of their church - which is a family writ large under the same dynamics as the biological family. The family channel is also against the socialist state - not because of higher taxes, but because the aid of the state weakens the dependence of family members on one another -which weakens the family, and thus the church.
It is also clear that such progressive organs as The New York Times like the idea of the "alternative" - or loose - family. In a recent article, one of their reporters claimed that the traditional family "of the 50's TV fantasies" was dead. This was not a lament, but a sigh of relief. The strong, dependent family is more religious and in far less need of state support than the broken family. The progressives thus naturally see the traditional family with children as an impediment to their ultimate designs.
I will briefly show what might be a prejudice here, although it appears to me to be logical: it seems that the means of the religious are far more moral than those of the progressives; that is, the family-religious do not look forward to a state of chaos to achieve their goals. The progressives would not see it this way, I know. They would not see that their necessary means - the breakup of traditional family and religion - promotes chaos, but it is apparent that it does; to compare the crime rates of 1950, for instance, with anything past 1970 is to compare apples and oranges - clearly greater chaos has ensued, to the overall detriment of society.
To be fair, the progressives site the suffering of those who cannot fit in - the homosexuals, the militant feminists, the poor who are poor by circumstances - to support their goal and means. Still - how to help the poor, who have always been among us - is up for considerable debate. When, for instance, does help become an entitlement, and so lesson the chance that the poor might help themselves? And at what point should the people who cannot fit into one of the many moral-religious systems control the lives of the great majority who do? Should we be the first society on earth controlled by the non-conformist behavior of small minorities?
I knew this book would take us here. I have a feeling it will take us further still. Interesting and ultimately practical - for we should know the greater world we are creating by our individual choices. More to come, FK
What is interesting is that this cuts across dogmatic lines. Only Catholics are forbidden to use the standard birth control devices and drugs - and yet those of other religions have more children than the non-religious. From another angle, feminists are ostensibly about women's liberation or equalization (as they see it), yet are more often than not in favor of state control over voluntary religious control. Atheists, who are supposed to be for a rational approach to the "superstition" of God, are also universally, as far as I know, for the liberalization of what is meant by "family" - and supportive of state control. The pieces of the puzzle fit remarkably well from her perspective - which has made me think: is her perspective as new as she thinks?
There is on my satellite radio a religious program called "Focus on the Family" which sees precisely the relationship between family and religion in just the sort of feed-back loop that our author does. I have further to go in the book, but how much more can she show the relationship of family and religion than this program? On the Family channel, the idea is precisely this: that a successful family is about self-control and obligation, as well as love - which in turn creates children with that same attitude towards the world - which creates people ready to voluntarily sacrifice money, effort, and certain pleasures to become members of their church - which is a family writ large under the same dynamics as the biological family. The family channel is also against the socialist state - not because of higher taxes, but because the aid of the state weakens the dependence of family members on one another -which weakens the family, and thus the church.
It is also clear that such progressive organs as The New York Times like the idea of the "alternative" - or loose - family. In a recent article, one of their reporters claimed that the traditional family "of the 50's TV fantasies" was dead. This was not a lament, but a sigh of relief. The strong, dependent family is more religious and in far less need of state support than the broken family. The progressives thus naturally see the traditional family with children as an impediment to their ultimate designs.
I will briefly show what might be a prejudice here, although it appears to me to be logical: it seems that the means of the religious are far more moral than those of the progressives; that is, the family-religious do not look forward to a state of chaos to achieve their goals. The progressives would not see it this way, I know. They would not see that their necessary means - the breakup of traditional family and religion - promotes chaos, but it is apparent that it does; to compare the crime rates of 1950, for instance, with anything past 1970 is to compare apples and oranges - clearly greater chaos has ensued, to the overall detriment of society.
To be fair, the progressives site the suffering of those who cannot fit in - the homosexuals, the militant feminists, the poor who are poor by circumstances - to support their goal and means. Still - how to help the poor, who have always been among us - is up for considerable debate. When, for instance, does help become an entitlement, and so lesson the chance that the poor might help themselves? And at what point should the people who cannot fit into one of the many moral-religious systems control the lives of the great majority who do? Should we be the first society on earth controlled by the non-conformist behavior of small minorities?
I knew this book would take us here. I have a feeling it will take us further still. Interesting and ultimately practical - for we should know the greater world we are creating by our individual choices. More to come, FK
RSS Feed