Immoral America

We hear it a lot from multiple elements on the Right.

"America is growing away from God and we are sinking into moral depravity!"


But are we? Is this growing proclivity for immoral behavior because people are committing more crime? Is it because gays openly frolic about town glitterbombing political opponents? Is it because women moved from the kitchen and into the workforce? Secularism in DC? Abortion? Divorce? Drugs? Rock n' Roll?

What kind of society is the United States? Here are some stats to paint a picture:

In recent decades, the crime rate across the board has nearly been halved. Unless you're in prison, where the crime rates are brutal and not factored into national averages.

Abortion has decreased by 8 percent between 2000 and 2008.

The divorce rate has dropped, too. Down to it's lowest rate since the 1970s.

Charitable giving? Increasing. It dipped during the recession, but that's understandable.

Teenage pregnancy? At its lowest rate in about 40 years.

More on those wily teenagers: the national graduation rate is at its highest, 72 percent, in nearly two decades.

However, the number of Americans claiming religious affiliation has decreased. Church attendance has been falling for years. Atheism is also growing. None of these things are reflected in society the way that those peddling moral decline anxieties said they would.

In fact, kids today are less religious, but still share the moral views of their parents and grandparents. There's an astigmatic, rhetorical take on moving away from God, and that is what follows such action is surely an immediate switch to evil -- because religion never had much use for grey areas or relativity.

If you come to your own conclusion that God doesn't exist, you don't follow that with, "Well, now that God's not around, I guess I can start having sex with children."

Eating puppies remains unpopular among atheists, too.

"I guess I can start stealing and deceiving people." Ironically, two things that religious institutions have mastered over a few millennia.

Nope. Your morals pretty much stay the same. Though you might become more sexually liberated, because, let's face it, fuck missionary. You draw your conclusions from the social contract we all have with each other, and have had throughout human history. Despite the myopic arguments of libertarians, we're not islands. Our actions affect each other. Have affected each other. And will continue to affect each other.

One of the core tenets of anarchy, those who do not recognize any sovereign whatsoever, is essentially to do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the ability of another person to do what they want. No stealing (though property rights are debatable among anarchists). No killing. No raping. These things tend to be inhibitors to leading a fulfilling life.

Oh yeah, anarchists don't believe in God. At least not en masse. Their worldview is shaped by human relationships. Seems pretty moral to me that even while advocating a state-less, God-less society, they can view some of the same things religious people also view as immoral.

Belief in God does not equate to morality. In the United States, the more religious of the two main political parties is also the most hawkish. Take into account this tiny overview of our nation's last big military venture:

We were lied into two illegal acts of international aggression, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, in order to open up markets for industrialists. Sure that sounds like most of the wars that the United States involves itself in, but the biggest difference here is that the effort was led by a Republican party with renewed religious vigor.

Now, there is the issue, though, of single-parent households. This issue persists throughout most Western democracies as they form the bulk of welfare recipients in various countries, including our own. Senator Glenn Grothman (R-WI) has even proposed a bill which would essentially outlaw single-parent households in the United States.

That's a bit extreme, though indicative of how America tries to solve its problems. There's no urge to delve deeper into understanding the systemic, institutional causes of an identified issue. Only a call to eradicate it through an amendment or a law.

One question that immediately pops into mind is how Republicans can balance their "small government" talk while simultaneously promoting legislation like this which is undeniably big government? The answer of course is cognitive dissonance.

Maybe if it were men who headed the most single-parent households the approach would be different. People with vaginas are one of the favorite targets of Republican-led, faith-based initiatives (as evident in the ongoing debate over abortion rights and the contraception debacle).

Back to the point: Education is probably the best weapon available to any society when combatting crime, poverty, and high birthrates which contribute to disadvantageous situations (like single-parent households).

That's "education", not God. Some say a lack of God leads people down this road. Those who take a scientific approach to the problem, looking for correlating trends in society, will likely say that it's poverty. Unless the poor have suddenly given up on prosperity theology.

American politicians, armed with their usual pragmatism, approach this problem by putting education among the first programs on the chopping block when it comes to reigning in budget constraints. The American public responds by denigrating teachers and allows it to happen. The engine of society. Tossed to the wolves. God will make it all better. Books are for liberals and fags, right?

Still, even though single-parent households are growing throughout the West, it remains that those family units in the United States do disproportionately worse than single-parents in nations like Sweden -- with its notorious socialist institutions.

According to an article in The Economist (upon which most of this is based), Republicans a likely taking a more stark view of un-wed parents in that their existence itself, regardless if their children turn out successful or not, is indicative of a moral deficiency.

As per the usual, religious conviction purges context from the story.

The conclusion, however, is that there really is no morality crisis in the United States. At least not in the way Republicans and their hyperbolic religious allies argue for. As for what the Democrats think, does it matter? Do they do anything about anything?

Though, if asking for permission can be used to gauge moral conduct, the Democrats have it down pat as they seem to not be able to act without the blessing of Republicans.

A different argument for morality in America, though, could certainly find some solid footing in our foreign policy which includes, but is not limited to overthrowing democratically elected governments, supporting repressive dictatorships, arming and training anti-communist death squads and terrorists, providing amnesty to international terrorists, and collateral damage during illegal acts of aggression to name a few actions which just might compromise one's claims to morality.

But the people lacking in that context are most likely the ones who believe that the United States is a benevolent force in the world at-large, which is contrary to the opinion of, well, the world at-large.

Nope. They likely won't be receptive to what they will construe as anti-American rhetoric. They'll continue to believe in the fantasies that those seeking their vote (Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Palin, Bachmann, Limbaugh, Beck, et al.) with peddle before them, and that is, America is facing a moral crisis despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So, encourage these people not to vote. Just kidding (maybe). Though limited, we do have a democratic process. If we don't want to be dictated to by the decisions that these misled minions vote for, the answer is to either become, or remain, engaged in the process itself.

No more whining about how fucked the system is and that voting doesn't matter. Voting doesn't matter -- when you don't vote! Leave the logical fallacies to other people.

While the intent of this article was to point out the intentionally misleading nature of religious political figures in the United States, it really does go beyond that when considering all of the untruths peddled which somehow escape scrutiny among targeted constituencies. After all, the people who buy into this are really good at believing in the unsubstantiated at face value.

From drilling now to reduce gas prices, to the argument that restricting a woman's access to contraception is "freedom", to anal sex being tantamount to a hell-worthy sin.

We can do a lot better if we apply a little curiosity to our daily routines. The less people buy into claims made at face value, it's only logical to assume that they they will come up less in the future.

Don't count on it to happen within the next few months before the next presidential election, or the next few years, but if you need convincing, look at the world around you and contrast it to the Dark Ages, witch hunts, and inquisitions that persisted in times where people were afraid to speculate on what they were told by authority figures for fear of getting spanked by God.

We've yet to be smote for asking why and pursuing answers beyond blind faith. This trend is likely to continue. Our moral decline, as defined by a religious narrative however, remains to be seen.