[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
New World Order Title: The religious right is being left behind The religious right, once a major power in American politics, is entering an uncomfortable dotage. Although numerous and well-organized enough to push Ted Cruz over the top in Iowa, the social conservative base, two-thirds of them born-again Christians, was of little use in New Hampshire, one of the most secular states in the Union. In the Granite State, Cruz did best among evangelicals but still slightly trailed Donald Trump among this one-quarter of New Hampshire Republicans. More importantly, Cruz’s religious strategy might not be enough to allow the Texan to vault past his main rivals, even in the “Bible Belt” states like South Carolina, where Real Clear Politics polls last week showed Donald Trump more than 16 points ahead. This, along with the total collapse of Ben Carson’s religiously based campaign, reflects, in part, slowing growth on the religious right. Evangelicals, who are the cutting edge of the movement, are gaining market share among Christians only because of sharper declines among mainstream Protestants and Catholics. Overall, notes Pew, 68 percent of Americans now believe religion is losing influence in society. In contrast, momentum is shifting to the religiously unaffiliated, whose numbers are rising rapidly, from 37.6 million in 2007 to 57 million in 2014. This process is particularly marked among millennials, a large portion of whom appear to have little interest in organized religion. Even if people remain spiritually inclined – and most Americans still are – the lack of church attendance makes mobilization of the faithful ever more difficult. Most importantly, some 34percent of millennials profess to having no religion, compared with 23 percent of the overall population. Trump paradox Perhaps nothing reveals the weakening of the religious right than the rise of Donald Trump. On the surface, Trump – a thrice-married exemplar of ostentation – seems more like Nero than Saint Peter. He’s a mainstream Presbyterian with little apparent knowledge of the Bible. Republican voters see him as the least-religious of the major candidates, notes Pew, yet he ranks first overall in their preferences, matching Ben Carson and surpassing Cruz among evangelical voters. Of course, Cruz did perform better in the Iowa caucuses among evangelicals, who are particularly well-organized. Despite lacking the “ground game” needed to win the caucuses, the New York self-promotor won 22 percent of the religious vote. Trump also appears to be doing better in the Southeast “Bible Belt,” notably in South Carolina, where his lead going into this weekend may already be insurmountable. In his critical Southern campaigns, Trump no doubt will brandish endorsements from the likes of Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va.. He will continue to make some attempt to show his religiosity, an aspect of his persona not seen much in the past. “Everybody read ‘The Art of the Deal,’” he told an audience at Liberty University. “Who has read ‘The Art of the Deal’ in this room? Everybody. I always say, a deep deep second to the Bible.” “The Bible blows it away,” he observed. “There’s nothing like the Bible.” The fact that Trump’s lack of religious bona fides are not deterring many religious leaders from supporting him suggests the waning of traditional spiritual zealotry. In the Reagan and Bush eras, piety was amply celebrated, and candidates who wanted to win the religious vote had to show, at least to some degree, that they walked the walk. But Trump appeals to white evangelicals on other issues – nationalism, immigration, economic uncertainty – that appear to be more compelling than cultural conservatism. That shift reflects changes in our class structure. The old ideal of working-class communities, bound closely by family and faith, is increasingly out of date, at least among Caucasians. Many white working-class voters attracted to Trump’s message are also increasingly detached from organized religion, more so than similarly situated minorities. Many working-class whites, instead of holding to traditional values, now exhibit high degrees of out-of-wedlock births, drug abuse and marginal employment. Earlier generations, living in an economy with ample opportunities, did not exhibit these characteristics to such a degree. In New Hampshire, Trump trounced his opponents among voters making less than $50,000 a year, winning almost 40 percent, and also took the lion’s share of the 93 percent of GOP voters who said they are worried about the direction of the economy. More secularization a good thing? Many in America’s secular-dominated media, political and business worlds may find the decline of the religious right a fortuitous development. To them, any expressions of faith – not only Cruz’s evangelicalism but the more conventional Catholicism of Marco Rubio – reflect what one writer at Salon labels “faith-derangement syndrome.” Hostility, or simply bewilderment, toward why anyone would embrace religion – besides environmentalist neodruidism – remains a fairly uniform among journalists. Some researchers, such as Claremont’s Phil Zuckerman, suggest the decline of religion reflects our greater sophistication as a society and our gradual shift to the dominant secular values of Europe. In 1970, 40 percent of Western Europeans went to church weekly; two decades later, that share was cut to 16.6 percent. While there is something to celebrate in the decline of what many saw as an intolerant religious right, the shift toward a totally secularized society may prove far less of a blessing. For one thing, weak religious institutions necessitate an ever larger welfare state, as government needs to usurp duties once performed by faith-based schools, hospitals and youth groups. Perhaps the biggest impact may be on demographics. There is, as demographer Wendell Cox has demonstrated with regard to the United States, a direct connection between religiosity and birth rates. The two global regions with the least religious engagement, Europe and East Asia, already suffer very low birth rates and hyperpaced societal aging. In contrast, virtually all religions, whether Hindu, monotheistic or Confucianism-based, are familialistic – much of the rituals of religious life center on kinship. Secularism, however, turns many of these values upside-down. It simply cannot, as author Eric Kauffman puts it, “inspire the commitment to generations past and sacrifices for those yet to come.” This increasingly leaves the heavy lifting of childraising with religious populations. Orthodox Jews, for example, have far more children on average than merely observant Jews, and far more still than secular Jews, with Orthodox women producing an average number of children (3.3) well above that of the overall population (1.9). Today, 40 percent of Jews in New York City identify as Orthodox, a 33 percent increase since 2002. Similarly, Salt Lake City and Utah’s entire Wasatch Front, world center of the Mormon faith, has both the nation’s highest traditional religion affiliation rate and the highest number of children per family. This suggests that, over time, religious people and values, as Kaufmann suggests, “could inherit the Earth” – but probably not in time to elect Ben Carson or, perhaps, even Ted Cruz. Changing role What we may be witnessing is not so much the end of religious influence, but an impending change in how faith interacts with society. No longer can traditionalist-oriented religious leaders hope to win the fight against secular values from the pulpit, particularly as government-sanctioned science has supplanted the role of faith. Religious leadership instead will need to redefine its role in ways that are, in a sense, more defensive and nurturing than aggressive and hostile. Religion’s future opportunity will lie with focusing on those very things – such as the raising of children, the maintenance of marriage and confronting aging and death – for which secular society has few adequate answers. A secularist culture tends to regard individuals as autonomous; besides sentiment or residual guilt, it fails to provide a rationale for sacrifice for future generations or personal service for the disabled and the aged. This is a major failing in an economically strapped society faced with growing populations of the physically and mentally infirm. The religious mission, in fact, may be more critical in a society where more people, particularly the stressed working class, lack the resources of community and family to cope with the challenges posed by globalization, technology and a debased social culture. Ecclesiastical institutions, and people of faith, can increase their relevance by providing a more humane alternative to the state for addressing these needs. It is by example, not by hectoring and chastisement, that faith can restore its place, if not at the ballot box, then in the society as a whole. Joel Kotkin is a R.C. Hobbs Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism in Houston. His next book, “The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us,” will be published in April by Agate. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
(Edited)
It is likely because of having grown beyond being inundated by morbid irrational stupidity and mythology ruling their life and limiting their intellect. To some degree this represents the attraction of being free to assume the roles of impulse-ridden psychopaths maiming each other. Unfortunately, While they have grown beyond religion, far too many people have not grown to the point where they have adopted a morality and ethics based upon the foreseeability of crippling consequences.
The religious "right" are well known gun brandishers. Just look at what happened in Burns, Oregon as one example: it took thousands of US/state and local law enforcement personel to subdue the vile liberty minded protesters; the "militia" were armed with nothing more than a few pop guns.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|