Falling Families, Rising Deviance

Reversing Postmodernism's Devaluation of Traditional Marriage and Family

The traditional family is the social institution that holds the most promise in guaranteeing the continuity and longevity of our free republic. The body of evidence that supports the traditional family as the greatest insulator against poverty, child abuse, and criminal proclivity is large and compelling. Without doubt, the emergence of alternative families has created significant disadvantages for children of such families, as well as a frightening risk to the overall welfare and continuity of a free society. As of 2004, 12.9 million children under eighteen, or 17.6 percent of all children, live in poverty. (Strober, pg 524) Social sciences data tell us that 33.4 percent of single-parent families live in poverty compared to 5.4 percent of traditional families. (Rauchut, pg 179) Children born out of wedlock or children of divorced parents score worse on several measure of well-being than do the children of tradition families. (Rauchut, pg 181) Children of single parent families are six times more likely to live in poverty than children of intact families. (Rauchut, pg 181) Equally alarming, 75 percent of children living in homes without a father will experience poverty by age eleven. (Horn, pg 580) Further, children who grow up with only one parent are likely to remain impoverished much longer than children who grow up with both biological parents in the home. (Rauchut, pg 181) Children living with two parents are 44 percent less likely to be physically abused, 47 percent less likely to be physically neglected, 43 percent less likely to be emotionally neglected, and 55 percent less likely be subjected to any form of child abuse. (Santorum, pg 571) The evidence leaves little room to question Dan Quayle’s frank assessment of the traditional family in his now famous “Murphy Brown Speech.” “We cannot be embarrassed out of our belief that two parents, married to each other,” Quayle proclaimed, “are better for children in most cases than one.” (Rauchut, pg 179)

The causes are changes in social norms and changes in government policy, both of which continue to threaten our nation’s sacred institutions of marriage and family. Postmodernists view traditional institutions, such as marriage and family, as merely social constructs that must be torn down and reconstructed, with the new model forcing conformance to some leftist idea of egalitarianism. The social revolution of the 1960’s, and the second wave gender feminist movement in particular, brought about a fierce assault on the traditional family structure and an affirmation that the institutions of family and marriage were inhibitors to gender equality that must be annihilated. (Rauchut, pg 189) In other words, the acknowledged interdependencies of the sexes that characterized traditional ideals of marriage, wherein male weaknesses were supplemented by female strengths and vice versa, were the adhesives that cohered two individuals to form the family unit. The feminist movement rejected the belief that the sexes were necessarily interdependent, which was effectively a rejection of the belief that woman and men were bound into a single unit by mutual dependencies. Feminists fervently asserted that woman could only find happiness in a career. (Graglia, pg 540) In the words of the influential and well-known feminist activist Gloria Steinem, “A woman needs a man about as much as a fish needs a bicycle.” (Rauchut, pg 189) The culture of the 1950’s, which was epitomized by the decade’s most popular television shows “The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet” and “Leave it to Beaver,” gave way to a phenomenon of marriage and family devaluation. By the 1960’s, the view that marriage and childrearing were two completely separate and unrelated life events had firmly taken hold. (Hymowitz, pg 562) By the 1970’s, it was not unusual to find a single parent, most typically the mother, to be raising children alone. The trend quickened throughout the 1980’s, and by the 1990’s, single-motherhood was conventional, even glamorized, as Dan Quayle pointed out in his controversial assessment of the television show “Murphy Brown.” (Skolnick, pg 518)

The consequences of changing social norms have been, and continue to be, exacerbated by government policy that encourages family disintegration and the devaluation of marriage. The negative income tax (NIC), an organized system of wealth redistribution through which cash payments are channeled to households below the poverty line, was proven in the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiments of the 1970’s to induce separation rather than to preserve marital relationships. (Lerman, pg 531) Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) promised single parents with children an infinite cash subsidy for as long as the recipient did not work or marry someone who worked. (Horn, pg 533) Welfare programs such as the NIC and AFDC increase the economic independence of individuals and encourage the abandonment of marriage. (Lerman, pg 531) Social welfare programs are progressive and designed to provide the largest benefit to the poorest individuals. (Lerman, pg 531) Consequently, due to the nature of the progressively administered welfare model, one whose economic status improves will experience a reduction in benefits that is relatively proportionate to their increase in income. (Lerman, pg 531) One who falls into this category will correctly reason that marriage will significantly improve their economic standing, thus reducing or altogether erasing the welfare eligibility status held while still single. (Lerman, pg 531) The end result is the perpetuation of cyclical poverty in which children are reared in single parent homes, and who ultimately go on to become single parents to yet another generation of future single parents, and so forth. Government welfare policies have therefore created a social condition of generational poverty recidivism, an unintended consequence of income subsidization and other government entitlements.

There are benefits associated with being a working mother, and to suggest that working mothers gain nothing from their lifestyle choice would be disingenuous. For example, studies show that children of working woman have more positive views of woman and less rigid views of sex roles, and that woman who work have a lower risk of heart disease. (Parker, pg 573 & 574) Regardless, the benefits seem comparatively few when recited in juxtaposition to the litany of statistical facts that expose the deviance that has grown out of the devaluation of traditional marriage and family values. Overcoming such disheartening realities conveyed in the statistics appears an overwhelming task. To secure our health as a nation, however, many are beginning to express a sense of urgency for the implementation of counter-measures designed to halt and reverse the disintegration of the traditional family. (Santorum pg 572) The yearn of woman, as many as 70 percent based on a 1991 Canadian survey, to rear their children at home as full-time mothers is compelling both woman and men to question, as evidenced in the emergence of the “pro-family movement,” the feminist view that woman can only find fulfillment in the marketplace. (Crittenden, pg 568 & Horn, pg 582) Government policy, particularly the creation of the welfare state, has played a critical role in the disintegration of the family unit. Does it not stand to reason then that reverse-engineering the postmodernist experiment that deemphasized family and marriage will also require government involvement? The erosion of the traditional family has inarguably given us increased child abuse, higher divorce rates, an increase in emotional problems among children, and rising crime rates. There is little to suggest any meaningful break in the upward trend of family devaluation, disintegration and their resulting incarnations of deviance. What are the long-term impacts to liberty of this escalating deterioration of family and marriage? Does such a trajectory lead to incremental government controls, and more bureaucratic encroachments, all of which ultimately culminate in the loss of personal liberty and possibly even the demise of our republic?

Carefully consider the following three steps that government could take to initiate a reversal of the damage caused by the abandonment of marriage and family values. First, we should consider the slow and ordered deconstruction of the bureaucratically administered welfare system, and the concomitant transition to a laissez faire model of social aid distribution that is managed and administered by private organizations. Second, changing the federal income tax code to more aggressively encourage marriage could precipitate a reduction in crime, child abuse, and other ills associated with single parent childrearing. Specifically, incrementally return the savings realized from the shrinking welfare state to married couples, and married couples with children through tax cuts. Further, provide additional tax incentives to single income families to further enable one parent to stay home with children. Third, we should assess whether or not an increase in tax breaks associated with the charitable contributions made by small and medium-sized businesses, large corporations and individuals, would sufficiently fund private charities and enable them to completely assume responsibility for the administration of assistance to the underprivileged.

A Critique of "White Privilege" Theory

How the Progressive Racial Blame Game is Perpetuating Hostility

Heckler on Race in America

During a recent discussion about race in America, I was challenged to read an essay by the feminist academic writer, Peggy McIntosh. The title of her essay is "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack". The basic idea of her essay is fairly simple. McIntosh believes that Caucasians hold power over people of color, and that white people are unable or unwilling to see or admit their position of advantage. She goes on to list twenty-six scenarios from her own personal life that she believes are examples of her privilege as a white person. In her view, whit e people must use their "unearned power" to weaken the social construct that keeps people of color oppressed by the system of white advantage. By the way, she also believes the exact same hidden power structure exists to subjugate woman to men. So, the really bad people, in her view, are white males, as they secretly repress both people of color and woman.

Now, there is no doubt in my mind that racism exists in this country, and anyone who says it doesn't needs to have their head examined. But what strikes me about McIntosh's article is that she attributes the problems of racism in America exclusively to whites, and she leaves the reader feeling that the only solution to the problem is for action on behalf of whites. But, think about it. Is the scope of racism really so broad that it is better labeled a conspiracy that secretly engages an entire race of people, or are racist acts isolated to the ignorant behavior of a few individuals?

In my opinion, it's the latter. The white privilege argument and its many variants are critically flawed, not to mention extremely divisive. One of the fundamental premises of McIntosh's argument is that white people deny, or are unable to see, their designation as an advantaged class. So, reflect for a moment on what she is truly saying about white people. That is, they either deny or are unable to recognize their status as an advantaged class.

In other words, the white people who know they are advantaged will deny it if asked. So, they are all deceitful - liars. If they're not being deceitful about it, then McIntosh says that whites cannot see their advantaged position, or that they have been taught not to recognize it. Does someone who is in a place of authority and advantage not know and recognize it as such? Frankly, to suggest that whites cannot see their advantage is to believe that whites are ignorant. It also asserts that elite academic liberals (like McIntosh) are the chosen ones, enlightened and capable of seeing white racism, since white people are too ignorant and unintelligent to see their position of advantage.

So, in short, McIntosh is saying three things: 1.) white people know they are advantaged, but lie and say they are not advantaged when confronted with their white racism, or 2.) they are too ignorant and closed-minded to see their position of dominance over people of other races, and 3.) only progressively-minded, liberal, elitist academics are brilliant and enlightened enough to perceive white power.

First of all, any theory that bases its argument on the assumption that an entire race of people are either deceitful or ignorant should immediately be discredited as fallacious, and most definitely has no place in a discussion on racism, especially when you consider the assumptions inherent in McIntosh's argument are themselves extremely racist. Saying that whites are too dumb or too deceitful to see their racist ways is egregiously racist and frankly deeply offensive to millions of good, ethical white people.

What would happen if someone put forth an argument, with the fundamental premise being that either most woman or people of color are ignorant, or are all liars? Would that person not be excoriated and permanently branded as an abhorrent bigot that is no better than a cross-burning kkk grand wizard? But since the target is white people, and the proponent is an elite academic, the theory is heralded inside the world of academia as genius! brilliant! - an intellectual discovery as momentous as the discovery of E=MCsq! The reality is that it's very wrong to assume such horrible things about any group of people. The hypocrisy buried in the white privilege theory is stunning.

The truth is, whites are fully aware that they have no special advantages in life, and if they did, the majority of them would admit it and not lie about it. Why? Because white people want to end racism as much as any other group in society. They are tired of the false accusations, the ongoing marginalization, the reverse discrimination, and the divisive rhetoric of the "white privilege" proponents. Do people not realize how demeaning it is to say that whites secretly oppress people of color? If all whites had to do to end racial tensions was to admit their secret hold on power, they would do it in a heartbeat.

The reason the white privilege theory has failed to solve anything, and has been completely ineffective in easing racial tensions is because its premises are false and unfounded. Further, you can't solve issues of racism by advocating more racism. If we are truly interested in improving racial tensions, people from all sides of the issue need to first understand that blaming all whites, or all blacks, or all men, and so forth, only exacerbate and deepen racial divides.

An Argument for Moral Absolutism

How Moral Relativism Has Led to an Explosion of Deviance

Heckler - On Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the idea that morality is not absolute. It holds that a standard of morality in one culture may not be the same in another culture, and that, similarly, moral standards differ from person to person. The former is said to be cultural relativism and the latter ethical subjectivism. Proponents of moral relativism contend that morality is situational, and that virtually all actions deemed as immoral can be changed and relabeled as moral in the right circumstance. It is conceited to think, so they say, that one culture has reached a level of higher morality than another since cultures arise from fundamentally different circumstances, historical contexts and backgrounds, which naturally yield diverse and inconsistent standards of morality. In the view of the relativist, it is therefore incorrect to say that morality is absolute, but is instead relative to the situation. (Moral Relativism, no author)

But, is it misguided to say that the dangerous and even barbaric actions of another culture could somehow be rationalized as moral?

Let’s examine some cultures that moral relativists would be disinclined to label as immoral. There are Aboriginal tribes in Australia, for example, who peel the skin from the male child’s penis and cut a piece of tissue from underneath as part of a ritualistic celebration of his maturity. There are various African tribes that ritualistically cut the forehead and face of initiates with the intent of leaving deep lasting scars. In yet another example, older males of the African Maasai tribe ridicule and deject boys who make any sound, groan, or even the slightest painful grimace during ritualistic circumcisions. (Lewis) There are no grounds for the moral justification of such barbaric acts. Ritualistic mutilation is culturally endemic to the tribes who practice such cruelty, and are not in any way isolated or anecdotal.

Contrast this with an incident that occurred in the Canadian Arctic that involved the death of an elderly Inuit woman who was left to freeze to death by her son, during a difficult trek across the frozen tundra. At first, the act seems heinous. But, then we learn that the elderly woman was hardly mobile and nearly blind, and was slowing the whole convoy significantly, which was jeopardizing the lives of all the travelers. He could let his mother die, and save the clan, or keep his mother alive, and let everyone freeze to death. He made an ethical choice to save the larger family by killing his mother. (Irvine) It was a choice that any rational absolutist would agree was moral, unlike the gruesome and inhumane rituals of the African and Australian tribal cultures discussed previously.

Moral relativists will point out, in their own defense, that moral relativism is present, actually prolific, in Christian faith. For example, no Christian believes that one should be put to death for working on Sunday, as dictated in the Old Testament, or that cursing one’s parents is to be punished by death, as provisioned in the New Testament. So, in this respect, the Christian is a moral relativist if he concurrently believes the Bible to be the Infallible Word of God, and parent cursing teenagers to be unworthy of lethal injection. Similarly, relativists point out the hundreds of divisions and splinter groups that exist within organized Christianity. So, is the self-proclaimed absolutist not, after all, a bit more relativist than she would have hoped to be? (Hammerlinck) In fact, these perceived inconsistencies do not point to moral relativism at all. The death penalty is just that: a penalty. It is not morality, nor is the various interpretations of doctrine that exist between denominations. The critical distinguisher is to understand that differences of opinion with regard to how Christians arrive at moral decisions do not necessarily mean differences in moral standards themselves exist. Moral standards are virtually the same across all Christian sects, though different interpretations of morally neutral subjects do exist.

What are the consequences of moral relativism? Deviance.

The exponential increase in the number of crimes, the break-down and devaluation of the family unit, and the relabeling of mental illness are all examples of how society has grown increasingly tolerant of deviant behavior since the social revolution of the 1960’s. As crime and single-parent families have increased substantially, society has continued to lower the standard for defining acceptable behavior, so as to preclude behaviors previously labeled as deviant from the dynamic, newly revised definition of deviance. In much the same way, mental illness has continually been redefined, and the consequences have been an incrementally smaller population with the designation of “mentally ill.” As a result, society is speckled with profoundly ill people living atrociously and inhumanely in gutters, cardboard boxes, and boxcars – people who would have been institutionalized just sixty years ago. (Krauthammer, pg 384)

We arrived at this point by indoctrinating generation after generation to believe that truth and morality are subjective. Today’s youth view knowledge through the lens of post-modernism, and consider Western morality, which has evolved over thousands of years, to be merely a social construct. There is no objective truth; knowledge is just a social construct. Some have even gone so far as to question the truth of the holocaust as a “conceptual hallucination.” An alarming number of students are afraid, or are unable to judge Hitler’s fascist and barbaric deeds as right or wrong, or to objectively state whether or not America was on the right side of World War II. In fact, some even question whether the historical facts of the war actually occurred. (Sommers, pg 391)

Personal morality, such as honesty, truthfulness, philanthropy, etc., is rarely, if ever discussed in ethics classes. The focus on and study of social morality has displaced the focus on individual morality. This one-sided approach has cast upon generations of students the impression that social morality comprises the whole of morality by deemphasizing and neglecting personal morality, which is, in fact, the other half of ethics. Ethics teachers often throw out specific moral dilemmas, to which the students are required to argue for or against the morality of the given prompt. This exercise, though beneficial in many, does have an unintended consequence and byproduct. That is, students are left with the impression that all ethical issues are open for debate, and that ethics has no basis, no foundational truths, and no absolutes. (Sommers, pgs 394 & 395)

The emergence of moral relativism has ushered in a new era of moral decay. Before a problem can be controlled, must it not first be identified and named? The unwillingness to recognize and identify immorality has led to an explosion of deviance, as the majority blindly embraces moral relativism. The mother who has taught her child to be non-judgmental, but then learns her daughter is incessantly judgmental toward her peers should cast of moral relativism to boldly address the child’s negative behavior. (Rauchut, pg 118) Our society needs a counterforce of independent thinkers to do as Emerson did, which was to refuse conforming blindly to societal trends. (Emerson, 374 – 383) As Aristotle described, the ultimate purpose of the human race is to hone and shape the rational soul. (Aristotle, pg 370) Unfortunately, most who embrace moral relativism did not obtain such a belief through the exercise of reason, but through peer pressure. The very survival of our society hinges on whether or not we go back into the cave, and free those inside from the shadows of moral relativism and the shackles of a disintegrating society. (Plato, pg 363 – 365)

Thomas Jefferson's Misunderstood Metaphor

How Liberty has Been Trampled Over by the Separation of Church and State

Heckler - On the Separation of Church and State

Whether they agree with the notion of ‘the separation of church and state’ or not, most Americans accept that religion has been effectively stripped from the public realm.

But, has it really?

I say it has not. In fact, government has, through supreme judicial perversion of Jefferson’s famous metaphor, the wall of separation, actually endorsed and provided preferential treatment to religions, religions with tenants that permeate all aspects of the public sphere. The wall of separation has separated all religion from government except the designated national religions that comprise the core of governance in America today. On one side of the wall are the majority of mainstream religions, alienated and repressed, banished from public discourse, policy and institutions. On the other side of the wall are the government-sponsored religions, extolled and embraced, pervaded abundantly in public dialogue, administration, and organizations. The erection of the wall, “one that must be kept high and impregnable,” has resulted in the formation of a persecutory state-sponsored religion that impedes religious liberty in contravention of the first amendment. (Rachut, pg 106 [quoting Justice Hugo Black]) The wall commits egregiously what its builders were supposedly trying to prevent. That is, government sponsorship of religion.

Religion is “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.” Another definition is “a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”1 Religion is often erroneously thought to have as its defining element a belief in the supernatural, and the existence of a deity. However, such beliefs are not mandated under the definition of religion. Religion is any commonly shared belief structure or practice that is present within a society, regardless of whether or not the belief structure or practice integrates belief in supernatural events, multiple deities, or a single deity. Christianity is a religion, because of its system of beliefs, which happens to include the belief in God. Similarly, Islam is a religion, a structured belief system, with the belief in God as a central theme. It should be noted that if either of the aforementioned religions did not hold the belief in a supreme being as a tenant, it would nonetheless still be a religion, because of the remaining system of beliefs that would still exist in the absence of divinity. The same could be said about Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, or any other world religion for that matter.

Why is this distinction important? It is critical that Americans understand precisely what it is that they were deprived of by Justice Black’s interpretation, (or misinterpretation more appropriately), of Jefferson’s metaphorical wall in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. (Dreiscach pg 317 – 318) Perhaps more important than understanding the deprivation that has occurred is to obtain an understanding of the coercive nature of the new government-sponsored religion in America. But first, it is vital to understand the truth underlying Jefferson’s metaphor, the founders’ views on religion and government, as well as the prevailing 19th century opinion of the interrelationship between religion and the state.

The wall was intended to be a one-way bastion of protection from the persecution that inherently exists in state-sponsored religion. (Patton, pg 331) They did not seek to protect government from religion, but rather to protect religion, and the free exercise thereof, from government. The founders sought to be free of the religious persecution to which they had been subjected in the Old World, and to create a nation without the bloody religious wars that had plagued Europe for centuries, by disempowering government of all control and influence over religion. (Spaulding, pg 312) They expressed disdain and contempt for government-endorsed religion, or “forced worship,” of which the radical 17th century theologian Roger Williams said, “stinks in God’s nostrils.” (Loconte, pg 359 [quoting Roger Williams])

The founders believed that liberty in the republic was only possible if virtue was present, and virtue and morality could only flourish in the presence of religion. Novak articulates it succinctly, “No republic without liberty; no liberty without virtue; no virtue without religion.” (Novak, pg 310) In his Farewell Address, George Washington declared healthy political debate to be supported by “religion and morality”, and, “that virtue and morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” (Washington, pg 311) Even the transient French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville recognized the power and necessity of religion within society. During his observations of America, the summaries of which were published in his 1835 work “Democracy in America,” Tocqueville describes religion as essential to the longevity of the American republic. He posits that people will relinquish their liberty to dictators in their search for the elusive answers to life’s most multifarious inquiries. (Tocqueville, pg 327) There is not doubt that religion, the Judeo Christian tradition in particular, was a foundational and integral component in the public sphere up to the 1947 ruling in Emerson v. Board of Education. (Novak, pg 310)

The religions that Justice Black elevated to state-sponsored status are the religions of Secularism, Atheism, and Nietzscheism. These Godless religions are faith-based, as is Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. Christians exercise faith to believe in God, whereas the adherents to the Godless religions exercise faith not to believe in God. Since no truly definitive evidence exists either way, it requires the same amount of faith for the Christian to believe in God as it does for the Atheist to deny God. Christianity bases its morality on the codes handed down from God and recorded in the divinely inspired Word of God, while secularism bases its morality on reason, science, and experience. (Silverman, pg 325) Christians believe that Morality exists based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, while Nietzscheists believe in moral nihilism based on the teachings of Friedrich Nietzsche. (Nietzsche, pg 301)(Jesus, pg 333) The religion of Atheism teaches dysteleology, one of its main tenants, which is the belief that God could not possibly exist because of the pain and suffering that is present on the earth. Christ teaches us that the key to easing the pain and suffering on earth is to love our enemies, and to be good to those who are not good to us.

Every human being whose feet have ever touched the face of the earth, whose breathe has ever captured the air of the planet, and whose mind possesses sufficient mental capacity to reason, has erected his or her own customized personal belief model, or has adopted an existing belief structure that answers, satisfactorily to the individual, the questions of: 1.) the origin of mankind and 2.) the origin and definition of morality. Humans can therefore be divided into two groups, which are: 1.) those who affirm the existence of God, or gods, and 2.) those who deny the existence of God, or gods. It is from one’s personal affirmation or denial of God that codes of morality emanate. One who believes in the Abrahamic monotheistic God, for example, will adopt existing codes of morality that originate from the Judeo-Christian texts and teachings, such as the Ten Commandments or the New Testament. Hindu morality extends from the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, and that of Islam from the texts of the Koran. In the same way, one who believes that God is a fallacious idea will adopt codes of morality that grow out of a belief in: 1.) humanistic universal codes of morality, 2.) the ability of logic and reason to yield the exposure of normative behaviors that are deduced to be the ethical components of secular morality, 3.) instinctive morality that has evolved Darwinistically within the collective conscience of the human race, or 4.) moral nihilism, which is the belief that ideas of right and wrong, and therefore morality by extension, do not exist.

All of these address two fundamental and important questions. The first is: does God exist? The second is: from where does morality originate, and how is it defined? Christianity, Atheism, Hinduism, Agnosticism, and Buddhism, as examples, attempt to answer these questions, and therefore all fall in the same definitive ontological category. Irrespective of the label one assigns to the many belief constructs, whether it is the term theistic religion, non-theistic religion, metaphysical belief system, or ontological belief model, all seek to arrive at the same end, which is a definition of morality and an explanation of human existence. In this light, Christianity is no different than Islam, Buddhism is no different than Agnosticism, and Hinduism is no different than Atheism. They all end at the same place: the adoption of a moral code via the determination that God either does or does not exist.

All humans possess ontological belief models, which are effectively religions, whether one chooses to describe them as such, or not. Without a doubt, it is not the role of government to force one belief system over another. In fact, to do so, as Sam Adams described, would be grounds to label one a “bigot.” Religious bigotry is one of the core reasons why Europeans fled the Old World, which was to escape the persecutory results of government-imposed systems of belief. The wall of separation was an illustrative metaphor that Jefferson used to describe the disempowerment of government, an innate feature of the American framework of governance, which prevented government from forcibly projecting certain beliefs onto the Danbury Baptists. It was not intended to be a bilateral prohibition or disempowerment of the Baptists, or any other group or sect, from the free expression of their beliefs in the public sphere.

When the Courts forced removal of prayer from schools in Murray v. Curlett, it was done to appease Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a prominent American Atheist. The subsequent purging of the public sphere of the symbols and practices associated with certain belief systems has deprived the likes of Christians, Jews, and Hindus of the right of free expression by creating a public climate that is comfortable only for the Atheist or Secularist. The government has barred discussion of Creationism, and has endorsed the teaching of Darwinian Theory, which is commonly accepted by virtually all Secularists and Atheists, as the only possible explanation of human origin. Government prohibits opportunities for students to meditate independently, based on their individual belief structure, during moments of silence. Such a prohibition represents a denial of rights to individuals and sects that value meditational reflection, and a concomitant endorsement of Atheistic and Secularist beliefs, which do not value moments of meditative and reflective silence.

The government’s extirpation of belief-based symbology, liturgy, introspection and silent adjuration at the behest of Secularists and Atheists represents tacit approbation of their systems of belief. In effect, Secularism and Atheism are modern America’s government sanctioned religions, and their status as non-theistic is completely irrelevant. The ban on public prayer, the prohibition of erecting symbolic displays in public spaces, and the removal of belief oriented texts from public common areas are classic examples of an overreaching government inhibiting liberty.

The proper approach for managing beliefs in the public sphere is illustrated beautifully on the walls in the U.S. Supreme Court’s main chamber, where marble panels display sculpted images of Moses, Muhammad, and Confucius. Thus, the moral codes originating from the theistic beliefs of Judaism and Islam are represented in the depictions of Moses and Muhammad, and coexist harmoniously with the non-theistic Chinese humanist idea of morality that emanates from Confucianism, as represented in the depiction of Confucius. And so it is, on the marble friezes of the highest court in the land, in fact the very court that struck free expression from public life, that Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and Secularist beliefs are all represented in unity, in the spirit of diversity. Yet, elsewhere in public life, only the views of Secularists and Atheists have voice.

Repressing public discourse is not tolerance. A Christian hearing and respecting the prayer of a Muslim prior to a public proceeding is true tolerance. A Hindu teacher explaining her beliefs to her Jewish students is true tolerance. A Sikh showing appreciation for Christian art in a government building is true tolerance. An Atheist who explains his position on evolution to a group of science students in a public school is true tolerance. The Buddhist who respectfully contemplates the eight-fold path to enlightenment during a Christian prayer is true tolerance. Rather than a place of restriction, the public sphere should be a place where tribute to our independence from religious repression is paid through the free expression of diverse beliefs. Instead of protesting a Muslim prayer in a public classroom, or a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn, we should be filled with thankfulness that Americans are free to engage in religious expression.

Our maturity as a tolerant nation should allow us to observe and respect the free expression of alternate beliefs in the public realm. It is an immature and intolerant nation that cries foul when another publicly exercises his or her religious beliefs. It is a mature and tolerant nation that celebrates liberty when another person publicly exercises his or her religious beliefs. We should not be afraid to hear a Christians pray in a public gathering. We should not fear a Jewish symbol on public property. We should not fear an Atheist’s point of view in a public text book. We should fear none of these, because none of these represent state endorsement of theistic or non-theistic religion. On the other hand, they do represent the very definition of diversity and tolerance.

When religion was stripped from the public sphere, its standards of morality were stripped with it, thus creating a moral vacuum that has since been filled with the morality derived from Godless religions. The ruling upholds and supports the religious tenants of atheism and secularism in public discourse, and disallows the tenants of Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism. When the courthouse lawn is stripped of the nativity scene, government shows reverence to atheist beliefs while scoffing at Christian beliefs. When the Ten Commandments were taken from the classroom, the government gave preferential treatment to students who adhere to atheism and secularism, and second-class treatment to Christians and Jews. Government banned prayer in school to appease adherents of atheism and proponents of secularism, and to appeal to their religious beliefs over those of Christians and Jews.

The early settlers fled to America from Britain to escape persecution at the hands of the Church of England, which was the only church endorsed by the government. Today, Christians and Jews are alienated by the Church of America, which worships the tenants of secularism, atheism, and other non-theistic religions. In so many ways, our nation has come full circle, and we are once again living under a government that represses theistic religious expression and endorses non-theistic religious beliefs.

In case you haven't noticed, there is no new world to which we can flee religious persecution. That means we have two choices: live with it, or change it.

The Mythos of Change and Big Government in America

Challenging the Notion that Economic and Social Advancement Requires a Big Government

Today, one of my progressively-minded academic peers was asked to defend his support of big government. "Society has changed significantly since the signing of the Constitution," he remarked. "The Founding Fathers never imagined how large and complex our nation would become, and we need a large government to help manage the needs of a large and complex society." His sophistry continued, "Events that led us to the necessary growth of government include: the Industrial Revolution, Great Depression, World Wars, Iron Curtain, Recession, Information Technology boom, and 9/11, just to name a few. These events could only be addressed with a very large government, and have even made us realize that government should be even larger to help protect us from repeat incidents."

Alas, Stalin would be proud.

I understand that many believe that economic and social evolution mandated the emergence of big government in the US, and that the state has enlarged its scope of influence over time in relative proportion to increasing social complexities. But, think about it for a moment. On what basis is the belief that this alleged dynamic symbiosis between big government and complex society known to be true, or more importantly, productive? I understand that people believe it, but I don't understand why they believe it.

We know that government started growing in the 30's, but how do we know that growth was essential to the health of the nation? How do we know that progress would not have still occurred in the absence of a big government? Further, how do we know that big government did not actually slow progress and weaken our nation? What evidence exists to support the assumption that our nation is better off with a big government, and is it possible that big government has done irreparable harm to our country?

Perhaps, one would argue that no evidence exists to the contrary, that our nation has never weathered periods of precipitous change in the absence of a big government, to which I would earnestly object. Was America significantly more complex in 1930, than it was in 1790? Indeed, it was infinitely more complex in 1930. Was social and economic progress made in that 140 year period prior to 1930? Without a doubt, it was.

It is true that we are more complex in 2010 than we were in 1930. But at the same time, we were more complex in 1930 than we were in 1790. Yet, the social complexities and industrial quickening that characterized the 1800's were all managed with a very small government that consumed less than 5% of GDP.

Some argue that the depression forced the growth of government in the 1930's. But, they fail to remember the depression of 1873, which was a major global economic crisis that America navigated with a very small government that never exceeded 5% of GDP. Moreover, the 1873 depression ended in 1879, and was about 5 years shorter than Roosevelt's depression of the 1930's. (I might point out that Roosevelt's depression was managed by a big government, and lasted significantly longer.)

Some cite the industrial revolution as an impetus for bigger government. But does that really makes sense, considering the industrial revolution ended in 1850, eighty years prior to the government's leap toward societal dominance beginning in 1930?

To say that contemporary events are somehow special and different from the historical events of our forefathers, different to the point that they require the adoption of a big government with which to manage them, is an odd notion to me. Although I would never personally suggest this, others might even be inclined to label such a belief as a bit arrogant. Truly, each generation of people view the historical events of their lives, and of the decades preceding their lives, as unique and of greater importance than the more distant events of previous centuries. But in reality, the invention of the wheel had no greater impact on the Neanderthals than did the invention of the steam engine on the Early Modernists. The steam engine had no greater impact on the Early Modernists than did the invention of the microchip on Generation X. The invention of the microchip may feel more momentous in its impact on society because we have personally seen its influence on our nation, our economy, and our culture. But in reality, the wheel, the steam engine and the microchip have all impacted their respective societies equally, and the introduction of one into historical currents required no greater scope of bureaucratic governance than did the other.

So, why do people believe that economic and social advancement and growth is predicated on the existence of big government? What evidence exists that leads one to believe that big government is necessary now, but was unnecessary in 1790 when the Constitution was signed?

Well, no one will ever be able to provide such evidence, because it does not exist. And although there is a much more compelling body of evidence to support a small government, the system will go on perpetuating the false idea that big government is necessary to manage the nation's growth and change, which is a load of malarkey.

The Great Norwegian Utopia

Oil Has Made Norway Rich, Not Its Socialist Economic Model

I recently overheard a couple of acquaintances discussing the pros and cons of health care reform. In an attempt to sway the other's opinion on the matter, I overheard one of the woman exalting Norway for its stellar, near perfect socialized health care system. She went on praising the frozen utopian paradise for its high standard of living, free secondary education, and other cradle to grave subsidies. "The people in Noway," she said excitedly, "they pay 60% in personal income taxes, but look what they get in return!"

It was the hardest thing I've ever done, but I managed to keep my mouth shut.

I never cease to be amazed at how people get suckered into believing this stuff. We've all seen supporters of the welfare state point to the Norwegian model as an example of a successful mixed economy. But, when you peel the onion, so to speak, you find that Norway is actually in big trouble economically speaking. Do a little digging, and you'll find that it is one of the most unfair and economically repressive nations in the world due to government profiteering and extremely high prices.

First of all, everyone needs to understand that the U.S. could never copy Norway's economic model, because they have something we don't: the North Sea Oil Reserves. Right now, Norway is benefiting in an enormous way from their oil, and is sort of the "Jed Clampet" of Europe. To give you an idea of the enormity of their jackpot oil production, the national oil company, Statoil, took in over $600 billion in revenues in 2008. The GDP of Norway was $247 billion. So, the revenues of the government-owned oil company were almost 3 times the output of the entire Norwegian economy. Imagine; what if the U.S. government had an income source that was 3 times larger than the total economic output of our economy? Of course, we could buy every citizen (and maybe even our 20 million illegal immigrants too) a Porshe and a McMansion, and provide every American a sizable stipend for the rest of their lives, and still have money left over.

See the chart below (Figure 1). Oil is the number one source of revenue for the Norwegian government. Look at the top two bars on the graph. The U.S. does not have this revenue source.

(Figure 1 - Click on Image to Enlarge)

What is unimaginable is that the government of Norway continues to tax their people at one of the highest tax rates in the world, even though this huge windfall of money exists. Think about this for a moment: the government of Norway took in $226 billion ('07 est) in total revenue (income taxes, oil profits, fees, etc.), but it only spent a total of $159 billion for the same time period. That is a $69 billion profit or a 42% revenue surplus, all made on the backs of the average Norwegian who pays 60% of their income to the government in taxes and $16 to McDonald's for a Happy Meal! And what has the government of Norway done with their 42% profit? Well, it's done what any good, responsible, liberal government would do; it created a slush fund.

Please explain how this is an ethical model for governance of a democratic people?

The embarrassingly high taxes have caused Norway to rank as one of the top 5 most expensive countries in the world in terms of cost of living, which is more than double that of the U.S.

See the table below, which shows a comparison of prices between the U.S. and Norway. By the way, keep in mind that the average Norwegian's after-tax income is roughly the same as that of an American. So, imagine how you would feel going to McDonald's and paying $16 for a hamburger on your present income. Not good, I'd guess.
















(Figure 2 - Click on Image to Enlarge)
(Source: http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/)

Is this really what we want our nation to look like: $111 for a grilled chicken at Chili's and a 60% income tax rate to boot?

The prohibitive cost of living trend is directly caused by the astronomically high tax rates as business compensates for the cost of high taxes by increasing prices. To illustrate this inflationary effect, let's look at an average McDonald's employee as example. If a McDonald employee in Norway pays 50% of their income in taxes, and the employee earns $8.00 per hour (that's about the average for McDonald's in the US), then they take home only $4.00 per hour. Well, no one is going to work for $4.00 per hour. If presented with such a measly wage, most people would probably figure it is better to stay at home, and opt out of work altogether. So, because labor is a mandatory component of business, McDonald's must pay $17.00 per hour to sufficiently remunerate labor at a level that attracts and retains employees. This way, the employee actually takes home $8.50 after taxes. People are willing to work for $8.50, but not $4.00 per hour. McDonald's then passes the cost of their sky-high labor on to the consumers who buy the burgers, which is why a Big Mac in Norway is $16.00. This is repeated all throughout the economy across virtually every sector, and confiscatory taxation is the core impetus of the present inflationary price trends that afflict, and will someday cripple, the Norwegian economy.

So, not only do Norwegians have the illustrious honor of surrendering 50 - 60% of their income to the government, they also get to pay double for everything they purchase.

Many economists predict that Norway is so overly dependent on the oil sector, that once world demand for oil drops, the nation could be thrown into a severe economic crisis. Business growth outside of the oil industry is virtually non-existent, and shrinking. Companies would rather do business on the moon than in Norway. Think about it. Have you heard of any companies flocking to set up shop in Norway lately? The high taxes, burdensome regulations, and cost of living have totally killed business development. When the Norwegians lose their oil revenues, and they will eventually, they will lose their present state of prosperity, and Norway as it is known today will slowly decline as their slush fund is exhausted over a 5 - 10 year period.

This is not what we want for our nation.

So, the next time you overhear someone singing the praises of European socialism, think twice before you believe them. Either they do not know the whole story, or they are intentionally leaving you in the dark to make socialism appear better than it really is. The latter is right out of Lenin's propaganda playbook.

ha en vidunderlig dag!

Big Government, Little Liberty

Heckler - On Limited Government


Click Graphic to Enlarge

Suppose one of the Founding Fathers, let’s say Madison, were suddenly thrust from the grave, full of life, into present-day America with the sole task of assessing whether or not the size and scope of government within contemporary society was in conformance to the founder’s original intent when our nation was born. Would he view the nation’s founding documents, which he helped to author, as having successfully and sufficiently restrained the growth of government over time? Would his assessment of personal liberties in the present be that their preservation has been maintained in accordance to his intent of the past? Would he return to the afterlife satisfied that America had, over the long-haul, lived up to his dreams and aspirations for the fledgling republic he helped to birth? Or, would his assessment leave him with the feeling that he, and the founding fathers, had failed to create a nation that would stand the test of time by remaining free of an intrusive, unwieldy, and overbearing government?

Sadly, the evidence suggests that Madison would be disappointed in the evolution of the nation. His assessment, I suspect, would leave him with a distinct feeling of failure upon concluding that federalism had escaped the bounds, limits, checks and balances that he and others had worked so diligently to integrate into our nation’s framework. He would likely think back to the discourse of his day and conclude that he was wrong, and that in fact, the anti-federalists were correct in their prediction that federalism would eventually fail to contain the growth of the federal government.¹

Where did we go wrong?

According to Dr. Ronald Pestritto, the era of big government, or the “administrative state” as he calls it, came to be in the 1930’s. ² (Kirkpatrick Reader, p 203) Prior to the ascension of Franklin Roosevelt to the presidency following the defeat of Herbert Hoover, government spending had remained low, almost insignificant, for well over 200 years. ³ (See Fig. 1) also (Rachut, p 83) Following the Civil War, sentiment in America began to reject the founder’s key beliefs: the belief in the natural law of human equality at birth; the belief that the sole purpose of government is to secure personal liberty; the belief that people enter society through a social compact, which is the agreement of all to obey society’s laws; the belief in a limited government, powerful private sector, and capitalist economic model; the belief in a domestic agenda that protects personal liberties, strengthens the rule of law, and promotes a moral climate that respects traditional Protestant values; the belief that foreign policy should be focused on a defensive, versus offensive or imperialistic, approach to national defense; the belief that policy must be driven by and originate from locally elected officials working as representatives of their constituencies. ⁴ (Kirkpatrick, p 249 – 253)

The size of government started growing in the 1930’s. Beginning in 1975, following the passage of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, government consistently consumed 20% of the nation’s total GDP, which represents a quadrupling in the size of government over the years preceding Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. (See Fig. 1) The General Welfare and Commerce Clauses have been radically reinterpreted by the courts, and in conjunction with the Sixteenth Amendment, allow for confiscatory taxation of personal wealth, and the redistribution of money based on the whims of federal bureaucrats, all in contravention of the constitution’s right to private property, not to mention natural law. ⁵ (Kirkpatrick, p 267) If we believe that the preservation of property is “the end of government”, as Locke wrote, then we can only believe that government has failed, and has itself now become a detriment to the right of private property rather than its protector. ⁶ (Kirkpatrick, p 274) Even though collectivism has failed the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, progressives advocate for the nationalization of private industry, not on the basis of its proven superiority (which does not exist), but rather merely on its advancement of utopian ideals. ^{7, 8} (Kirkpatrick, p 297) The federal government has taken over major privately owned automotive and financial corporations, and a minority of progressives and socialists are advocating the nationalization of the entire healthcare industry, which makes up 1/6 (16% of GDP) of the U.S. economy. ⁹ Progressivism engenders a rapacious entitlement mentality with an incrementally larger and more ravenous appetite for the wealth of others, and as government becomes the nation’s primary philanthropic arm, personal benevolence and altruism withers in the aloofness of the welfare state. ¹⁰ (Kirkpatrick, p 243)

Madison’s assessment would be grim. The turn to progressivism in the 1930’s, he would certainly agree, has cost Americans their liberties and rights. The ‘new’ republic in which we now live is closer in reality to the utopian vision of Plato than the refuge of liberty envisioned by our nation’s founders. ¹¹ (Kirkpatrick, p 277 – 289) The Machiavellian approach to defense, which holds government’s highest priority to be the protection of liberty through deterrent munitions accumulation and aggression response readiness, has largely been exchanged for priorities of appeasement, disarmament and the downsizing of the military, all of which expose the nation to harm at the hands of aggressors. ¹² (Kirkpatrick, p 225 – 226)

It is hard to believe that the founders ever imagined a federal government that would consume more than 5% of GDP. During Madison’s posthumous and hypothetical assessment of present-day America, when he would learn that current federal spending is in excess of 20% of GDP, he would be concerned, I believe, that the nation was on a trajectory toward failure. If the size of the federal government can quadruple in 70 years, Madison’s logical conclusion would be that it could again quadruple over the next 70 years. In 1797, Madison thought it inconceivable that federal spending would ever routinely surpass 20% of GDP, within the framework of checks and balances he had helped to create. Is it inconceivable to think, then, that government spending could equal 80% of GDP by 2080, and would we still be able to call ourselves free people?

Sources

1. Anti-federalists, Wikipedia, retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifederalist

2. Pestritto: “The Birth of the Administrative State,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 203)

3. Rachut: American Vision and Values, Bellevue Press, 2008, (p 83)

4. West and Schambra: “The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 249 - 253)

5. Pilon: “The Purpose and Limits of Government,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 267)

6. Locke: from The Second Treatise on Government,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 274)

7. Kristol: “Utopianism, Ancient and Modern,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 297)

8. Health Care in the United States, Wikipedia, Retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#United_States

9. Health Care in the United States, Wikipedia, Retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_health_care_system

10. Messmore, “ A Moral Case against Big Government,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 243)

11. Plato: from The Republic, Book V, Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 277 - 289)

12. Machiavelli: from The Prince, Chapters X, XIV-XIX, XXV, Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 225 - 226)

13. Historical Spending and GDP, Retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php

14. American History Timeline, Retrieved on January 9, 3009, at: http://www.animatedatlas.com/timeline.html