The first is from Andrew Sullivan, an article on how the red state/blue state division is largely one of those who talk the talk and those who walk the walk. The red states talk about morality and "family values", but the blue states tend to actually put those values into practice far more often:
Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways, they were the two states competing in the last election. In the world's imagination, you couldn't have two starker opposites. One is the homeplace of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes, and social permissiveness. The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional, and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for Kerry over Bush 62 to 37 percent; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61 to 38 percent.So ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in actual fact, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas - which until recently made private gay sex a criminal offence - has a divorce rate of 4.1. A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates in the U.S. are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. And the states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Every single one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every single one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate, in fact, is roughly 50 percent higher than the national average.
I made much the same argument in a post a few weeks ago, but Sullivan adds some cross-national data to it. Even I was surprised to find out that in the Netherlands, land of legal marijuana, euthenasia and other types of permissiveness, the abortion rate is only 6.8 per 1000 women, while in the US it is 21 per 1000. He also points out the obvious fact that many of the most prominent exponents of "family values" have been married multiple times. There is grand irony in listening to Rush Limbaugh tell us that gay marriage will diminish the sanctity of all three of his previous marriages (and presumably his forthcoming fourth).
The second must-read article is from Jon Rowe, who takes Sullivan's as a starting point and delves much deeper. It leads him into a discussion of education and religion (the other big factor in distinguishing red states and blue states is the average level of education) and their impact on morality and behavior. In doing so, he examines this statement from George Washington's farewell address:
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Rowe's analysis of this statement strikes me as pretty accurate:
Sullivan's analysis casts doubt on the truth of Washington's statement, which implies a strong correlation between morality and religious belief. However, I think there is definitely *something* to Washington's sentiment. Reading the entire lecture in context, this passage, often cited as proof of Washington's pious belief, has a nuanced message that most don't fully appreciate. In this speech, Washington does not say that he was an orthodox Christian (because he wasn't), nor did he say that he believed the Christian religion to be true (he doesn't even use the word "Christianity"). Rather he made a fairly, what would now be characterized as "Straussian" argument: If we examine human nature, human beings often behave very badly. And religion -- devout religious belief in particular -- is something that helps to "keep people in line" so to speak. But, according to Washington, religion isn't the only thing that can do this: "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure...." Washington, basically, noted that philosophy or (elite) education, can serve the same "civilizing" function, as religion. Back then, it was more important for Washington to focus on religion, because an elite philosophical education simply was not available to the masses (nor did most have the "minds" for it); but religion was readily available (and you didn't need a "mind of a peculiar structure" to partake in it).
There is a bit of irony in this, since it has long been believed by many historians that the two founders that Rowe and I would likely look most favorably upon (Jefferson and Madison) looked at Washington as a mediocre intellect with a modest education at best, not bright enough or well educated enough to withstand the much smarter and more manipulative Hamilton. But I think that Rowe is on to something here.
- Log in to post comments
"The first is from Andrew Sullivan, an article on how the red state/blue state division is largely one of those who talk the talk and those who walk the walk."
If you think twice, it should be that way. People, who get shot in the streets, usually will stress security because it is their number one priority. Same with people whose divorce rate is high.
"Even I was surprised to find out that in the Netherlands, land of legal marijuana, euthenasia and other types of permissiveness, the abortion rate is only 6.8 per 1000 women, while in the US it is 21 per 1000."
That is not surprising at all. As far as I know, sexual education in USA (at least in some areas) is lightyears behind from Europe. You can't keep all teens from having sex so you should make information and contraception easily available for all. So I don't think that US/Dutch difference in abortion rates are because US teens are just irresponsible.
Those 'family values' suck because they inhibit flow of information.
- Sylvester "Eurowussie" DeNusso
As an evangelical Christian, you bring up some matters that make us squirm. Even some pollsters within evangelicalism have pointed out that professing Christians divorce at the same rate as those who claim no Christian faith.
One thing I would be curious to know about though - are there less marriages in say, Mass. than in Texas. In other words, if Mass. is a predominantly blue state there may be far more cohabitation and other arrangements than traditional marriage. Would that skew the numbers? Just curious. Still, I agree that we evangelicals don't do a good job of practiciing what we preach. That's why I try to tell people to look at Jesus to know what Christianity is about, not His followers.
One thing I would be curious to know about though - are there less marriages in say, Mass. than in Texas. In other words, if Mass. is a predominantly blue state there may be far more cohabitation and other arrangements than traditional marriage. Would that skew the numbers? Just curious.
No, there are actually more marriages in Massachusetts per capita than in Texas. 67.6% of those in Texas are married, while 73.2% of those in Massachusetts are married. Which surprises me as well, actually. I actually don't think it has much of anything to do with whether one is a Christian or not. I've read that those in the so-called red states tend to marry much younger than those in the blue states, and that alone could be the explanation. I'm firmly convinced that those who wait to get married until they are in their late 20s/early 30s (or longer, for that matter) will tend to have more stable marriages. I think they also tend to make better parents. The reasons are obvious - they're more settled as a person, more secure in every possible way, more established career-wise, more mature, and they've probably had enough other relationships end that they know more what to look for in a spouse than someone who rushes into it at 19 or 20. I think of myself at 21 and I can't imagine making a decision of who to marry at that age. Far too immature to ever make that kind of commitment.
Yes, Sylvester, reproductive health is a whole different story in Europe. We might as well be on different planets. I recall when I was stationed in England in 1967, I was watching the telly one evening. Around 10 PM the announcer said that the regular program would be delayed for an important message concerning women's health. The Minister of Health (MH) appears and begins discussing women's breast self-examinations (BSE).
This was brand new at the time. I recalled first hearing about it on the nightly news before I'd left the States a few months before. The MH mentions how important these are and how often they should be done, so he's going to describe the step by step procedure. The scene shifts to a woman standing before her bathroom mirror. The camera is behind her and to the right. She is wearing slacks and a blouse which isn't tucked in. The reflection in the mirror shows the blouse isn't buttoned down the front, there's a gap of a few inches between the edges.
"First," the MH intones, "give your breasts a thorough visual inspection." The woman dutifully pulls the two sides of her blouse wide apart and looks at her breasts in the mirror. The MH goes on the describe exactly what she should be looking for and I'm sitting there staring at the reflection of her breasts in the mirror as well. I was a bit stunned, I must say. Breasts on TV? My gracious! If I had my wits about me, I would have thought, "Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore."
As the MH describes the next step, her left breast fills the screen. She presses two fingers of her right hand to the edge of her breast and works her way around the outside as he describes, then moves in closer in smaller circles each time till she's pressing her fingers firmly against her nipple.
The screen shifts back to the MH who makes some final remarks about BSE's, then the regular programing continues. This announcement runs at the same time each night for about a month.
So... In the US, this important development in breast cancer detection gets 90 seconds on the evening news, with the anchor telling women to ask their doctor about it. In the UK, this is important enough to take to the public airwaves and give women a step by step demonstration of the procedure.
They had the same decency restrictions on their regular programming as we did, but if they could save women's lives by getting them to start these BSE's as soon as possible, and do them correctly, that was the more important consideration.
Then, 37 years later, we have a wardrobe malfunction and... Well, I guess we're back in Kansas again.