Where Is America?
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
The presidential election of 2012 generated a great deal of discussion, and while many of us thought more would be voting in this election than the last one, it turned out to be considerably fewer. There has been a considerable amount of post-election coverage, but the best analysis this writer has heard was presented in a Talking Points Memo by Bill O\u\u: O'Reilly on November 12, 2012. O'Reilly, according to the Los Angeles Times, currently has the #1 bestselling non-fiction book (Killing Kennedy) and the #2 bestselling non-fiction book (Killing Lincoln), which has been among the top ten sellers for more than a year. This fact is not pointed out because of its phenomenal nature but simply to show that O'Reilly possesses a sense of history.
That does not mean that he is always correct, of course; we have shown in previous articles how he misses the mark with respect to the Bible and to the subject of faith when he discusses these concepts with atheists (see May 13, 2007 and October 18, 2009). But as an historian, he possesses the ability to analyze such matters and his thinking does carry some weight. Some of what he says is entwined with politics, but it is not the political aspects of what he said that we are interested in so much as the way it relates to this country. What prompted this Talking Points Memo was a comment made by comedian Dennis Miller (who is far and away more intellectual than most comics and once hosted Monday Night Football). He said the day after the election that America has permanently changed:
Do I think I'll ever see it go back in my lifetime to the other way? No, I don't. I think this is it. Do I think it's the America that I saw from 18 to 58? No, I don't. Is that the end of the world? No. It's not like I was in the shower this morning and found a lump in my armpit. That's always my fallback position. I've got a great life. But I'm just saying it is not the America I've grown comfortable with.
Many people agree with Miller's brief analysis, but O'Reilly began by taking issue with the comments, saying:
Now, I've given Miller's election take a lot of thought. And I disagree with him. I believe traditional America can come back but it will take a very special person to make that happen.
At this point he discusses various political aspects which are not the concern of this article. But then he arrives at the part that is pertinent to Christians.
…secularism is certainly eroding traditional power. No question about it. Those Americans who attend religious services at least once a week voted for Romney 59-39, the problem is church going is on the decline in this country.
Here's an example. Despite the President's controversial insistence that some Catholic entities provide birth control and after pills, Catholics supported Obama 50 percent to 48 percent down from 2008 but still a surprise to some.
But only about 30 percent of American Catholics now attend weekly mass. So you can see the impact of creeping secularism on the religious vote. On paper, the stats look hopeless for traditional Americans. But they can be reversed. However, it will take a very special politician to do that.
The first point to consider is that the number of people attending worship has diminished. How is that possible with the growth of all the megachurches in the past two decades? Perhaps that is part of the problem. From where have the megachurches drawn their members? Part of their population comes from those who were not attending anywhere, but many were.
Thus, in many denominational churches the numbers have been dwindling. Some just quit altogether, and some go to one of the large entertainment centers where being religious does not necessarily require any commitment (including giving), and one can go home feeling good that two great things have been accomplished. He got to watch an entertaining show and took care of his religious "duty" at the same time! The only problem is that, over a period of time, people do not really have anything substantial to hold on to; they have not been taught to begin or develop genuine faith. They may eventually realize that each week's program is not really drawing them closer to God and grow slack in their attendance.
Also—and if you don't comprehend anything else in this article, don't miss this point—older members of all religious groups are dying off and are not being replaced by younger members. Why? Part of O'Reilly's analysis will explain why.
The second consideration of what O'Reilly stated is that members of religious groups are not compliant with what their church leadership teaches. He cited the most obvious example. O'Reilly is Catholic, and no one was harder on priests molesting young men and the cover-ups involved with that shameful situation than he was, but neither he nor non-Catholics can figure out why the religion's adherents do not follow the teachings of that church. O'Reilly must be mystified that the Catholic Church had been forced to sue our own government over freedom of religion, yet a substantial number of Catholics voted for the man responsible for making that lawsuit necessary. Hello!
Do not think that this is simply a Catholic problem. The same is true with members of denominations and those of us in the Lord's church. We teach the morality of the Scriptures (although fewer denominations do so than in times past), and yet members vote for the candidate who is opposed to Biblical morality. Few will admit it, but the statistics show that this is the case.
Third, O'Reilly mentions creeping secularism, which relates to what young people are facing. What does he mean by that? He explains.
Secular progressives champion a do-your-own-thing philosophy. No judgments about personal behavior are allowed in that arena. The public school system has adopted that philosophy. And that's now wreaking havoc on American society.
We have all observed personally the truth of this statement. Since the 1960s, there has been an emphasis on not judging anyone's personal behavior (except for that of Christians). And the public school system has been at the forefront of this change. Now, the reader should understand that O'Reilly lives in New York. The way the public school system is there or in various other northeastern states is different from what it is in, say, more conservative southern states. However, all of these are changing.
Examples
In 2010, about 41 percent of American babies were born out of wedlock. That's up eight percentage points since 2000 and up an astounding 23 percentage points since 1980. Babies born to unmarried women drive poverty, every study shows that, and American minority groups are the most affected.
In 2010, 73 percent of black babies were born outside of marriage; 53 percent of Hispanic babies were. The number was 29 percent for white babies. So the cycle continues. Minorities are more affected by poverty because the traditional family unit has broken down in those precincts. And rather than trying to reverse that, secular progressives want more entitlement spending. Nothing about changing libertine attitudes.
O'Reilly is exactly right. Except for Christians, who cares about these attitudes? Although schools may have programs where a young girl must wear a weight to demonstrate what pregnancy is like (perhaps discouraging her from winding up in that state), how many schools also hand out free contraception which promotes the very activity that will likely result in pregnancy? There was a time when a girl and her family were shamed when it became known that she had been immoral, but now everyone is supposed to congratulate her, and our government is supposed to pay her for her choice to commit fornication. If people would choose to follow the Scriptures, a great deal of crime and poverty would be eliminated.
On the abortion front, same thing; rather than trying to discourage taking the lives of millions of fetuses, the SPs have created a mythical "war on women," screaming that so-called reproductive rights are under assault. The abortion zealots want the procedure on demand, no matter how late term. And are stridently opposed to even counseling before this life-ending procedure is undertaken.
Abortion is settled law in the USA but it should be discouraged because human DNA is present upon conception. Thus, the situation becomes a human rights issue. Ask yourself this question, should America be a country where potential human life, an undeniable fact after conception, is terminated for convenience... for convenience? Is that the kind of country we want?
No, but it is what we have. Even though the majority of people now believe that abortion is wrong, they do not vote that way. The feminists, however, apparently have more commitment. They are shrilly squealing that their "rights" are about to be lost, acting as if birth control is about to be made illegal, and insisting that government pay for their contraception. How is it that so many women could be talked into believing that without any evidence whatsoever?
Probably, the reason that gains have been made on this subject is that, over the years, it has become increasingly obvious that the baby in the womb is really a human being. How is it that hysteria can overturn the facts of the matter? Again, what are young people being taught in school concerning this matter?
Finally, two states (Washington and Colorado) voted to legalize pot. Here are the grim stats on this idiocy. Since 2008, teenage pot use is up 40 percent and heavy use for teens has increased 80 percent. States that have lenient medical marijuana laws are driving those stats, why? Because legalizing pot sends a message that it's fine to use it and getting the drug at the corner pot shop makes it readily available to anyone. Ask any drug counselor. And he or she will tell you once a child is introduced to intoxicants that child's life changes for the worse.
Some may not become substance-involved but millions will. Do we want to encourage that? The SPs [Secular Progressives, GWS], they don't care about addiction. They don't want limitations on so-called private behavior. No judgments. If you want to smoke drugs? Fine. If you want to abort a fetus? We'll drive you to the clinic. You want to have a kid when you're 16, no problem at all, we'll support you.
The legalization of marijuana is the next battle that we will probably lose. We already lost on legalization of alcohol, no-fault divorce, fornication, gambling, and homosexuality. After we legalize drugs and prostitution, what will be left—stealing and murder? Maybe the last thing that will carry a stigma in schools is cheating. But that might eventually be all right. "After all, they're kids. They're gonna do it. Why impose outmoded punishments on them and hurt their self-image?"
Marriage?
One thing that O'Reilly did not state is that it seems to be important among young people that homosexual marriage be allowed. Several states had voted it down—some more than once. The only way it had become legal up until 2012 was through courts or state legislatures. Now voters have actually approved homosexual marriage in Maine, Maryland, and Washington, which means that soon other states will follow suit. Practically every television program has an acceptance of homosexuality, including married characters. How can that possibly be the case?
Once again, we go to the classroom where young people are taught that it is discrimination and bigotry not to accept homosexuality. Is this claim wrong? To be sure, all teachers are not going to cooperate with this message of humanistic thinking, but what is in the curriculum? How much freedom do teachers actually have with respect to this topic? And if they refuse to participate in the program, what will happen to them?
O'Reilly does not mention this either, but what is the effect on young people of being taught evolution? Of course, many of them learn the material but do not actually believe it, but enough do that it can make a significant difference. Now couple this with fewer and fewer young people attending worship each week, and what do you have? You have probably 70% of young people believing that God did not create us; we are the result of natural processes—matter that exploded and formed the universe. Man is just the latest step in evolution. There is no morality but what has arisen from man, and we therefore cannot judge others who have different values than we do. Homosexuals are just as much a part of nature as heterosexuals, and they have a right to live however they want.
Furthermore, these young people have not read the Bible and neither know nor care what it says. They have not heard that homosexuality has been considered wrong since the beginning of the world, and if they did know that the Bible condemned the practice, they would just assume that the Bible is wrong because they have never had the fear of God taught to them. If a person chooses to use drugs, that should be each individual's business. Their sense of history is not much more than their knowledge of the Bible, and they certainly have no idea why previous civilizations have been destroyed.
Can These Things Change?
Whereas Miller expressed a pessimistic view of the country's future, O'Reilly was more upbeat. He thinks a special person might turn things around (as stated earlier), and he also said:
I believe the majority of Americans can be persuaded that the far left is a dangerous outfit bent on destroying traditional America and replacing it with a social free fire zone that drives dependency and poverty.
A charismatic person might be able to bring the party out of power at this time into power, which could bring about some changes, but would it solve the problems detailed above? It does not seem likely that any political person or party is going to be able to change the direction our country going in, since the country has been deteriorating under both. One person has suggested that events will change the way things are.
It is this writer's conviction that Miller was right. Morally speaking, this country has changed, and it is not going back—unless God in His providence brings it about. Of course, if Christians were as evangelistic as we could have been during the last 40 years, we might have avoided being where we are today, but we have lost battle after battle to the SPs. If God chooses to save this nation, it will probably only happen after we have been greatly humbled. That is the only thing that worked on the nation of Israel. When that day comes, Christians need to be armed and ready with a knowledge of the truth, the willingness to teach, and a heart of compassion to help those in need.