In God We Trust? Well, Maybe: The Trend of Religion in America

Pick up any piece of American currency and you will find the words "In God We Trust" somewhere on it (it first appeared on coins starting in 1864). We sing patriotic songs like "God Bless America" and say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" , added by President Eisenhower in 1954 to set us apart from the "godless" Communists at the urging of a wide range of groups like the Knights of Columbus and various veteran organizations As an aside, it was also President Eisenhower who signed the bill approving the use of the phrase "In God We Trust" on all US currency in 1956. Even when you take an oath in a court of law, you're asked to tell the trust "so help you God" with your hand on a bible no less and the Ten Commandments appear in every courtroom.

Of course, there are those who claim that America was founded to be a "Christian" nation, though in truth it was founded to be a religious neutral nation; that is, a nation where all religions were welcome and where there would be no official state religion, unlike Europe where government's tended to have a state approved religion and all others had to obtain both permission to practice and to pay a special tax in addition to the state "pew" tax. Nevertheless, America was a nation which took great pride in its religious tolerance and in its devotion; adopting Judeo-Christian ethics into its laws. And so we remained since our founding as nation, that is, until recently.

Back when President Eisenhower signed those two bills into existence, approximately 70% of households attended some sort of religious services on a regular basis. 97% of Americans identified as "Christian", be it Protestant (70%), Catholic (24%), or Mormon (3%). Those numbers remained pretty much consistent through 1979 when there was a slight, but noticeable drop. In that year, those who identified as "Christian" dipped to 88%. While still a significant majority, it marked the first time the percentage dipped under 90%.

Since then, despite fluctuations, the overall trend has been generally downward. Today that number in barely 48%. Those who answered in the affirmative when asked if they were a "born again" or Evangelical Christian was just 36%. In 2018, 68% of those who identified as belonging to an organized religion said they hadn't attended a religious service within the last seven days. While 72% said that religion was generally important, only 33% admitted to having attended a religious service within the last month. When asked if they thought religion (regardless of their denomination) could help provide a solution to today's problems, only 46% said yes. 46% also said that organized religion had "to much" influence, however, 54% thought that organized religion should have more influence.

When it came to confidence in organized religion, 38% said they did while 33% said they had only a "some" confidence in organized religion and 29% had little or no confidence. Another interesting response was on the bible itself. When asked if they thought the bible was literal word of God, just 24% agreed while 47% said it was just the "inspired" word of God. The balance either thought it was myths, fables, or legends. As an aside, 87% said they believed in a god or higher power.

For those who identified as belonging to an organized faith, but didn't attend services on a regular basis, 44% said they preferred to worship on their own (and additional 21% said that was a contributing factor). 61% said they were turned off by organized religion, while 65% said they weren't quite as religious as they once were. The least most cited reason for not attending was not feeling welcome. 65% said that wasn't a factor and 55% said being asked for money wasn't a big deal either.

In terms of religion by region, the Midwest is 73% Christian (the majority is Evangelical Protestant at 26% followed closely by Catholic with 21%. Mainline Protestant was 19%). However, 22% identify as "none". Out West, 64% identified as Christian (Catholic was the slight majority with 23% while Evangelical Protestant was 22% while Mainline Protestants was only 11%). Nevertheless, 28% opted for "none". In the Northeast, 65% said they were Christian (Catholics were a clear majority with 30%. Mainline Protestants were 15% while Evangelicals were 13%). Interestingly, the "none" were 25%. . Nationally, other religions, such as Jewish, Hindi, Buddhist, or Muslim all tended to 4% or under. In most cases, they were around 1%.

Lastly, the South, which has traditionally been seen as highly religious and conservative; home of the "Bible belt". Here, 76% identified as Christian (34% as Evangelical Protestants, 15% Catholic, and 14% Mainline Protestant), and yet the "none" still polled 19%. The "belt buckle" of the Bible belt, Kentucky, showed 76% Christian. 49% were Evangelical with 11% Mainline Protestant, and 10% Catholic. Non-Christian religions totaled just 2% in the Bluegrass State. However, the "none" had a remarkable 22% showing. So, what's happening?

From practically its beginning, Christianity has been essentially a European religion despite having partial roots in the Middle East. However, that appears to be changing, and rapidly. Starting from about 1991 to 2014, white Protestants, which has made up the majority of Christians in America since its founding, have been on a steep decline. During the period mention, white Protestant churches have declined by one third, and will continue to accelerate downward as white America declines in population.

As a result, studies show that most congregations now have under 100 members with hundreds of churches being either forced to merge or simply closing. The worse hit are the Mainline churches such as a Methodists, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Catholic, and Presbyterian as well as Evangelical churches such as Baptist, Pentecostal and others. However, not all churches are in decline.

Those which are actually growing are the traditional Roman Catholic and Assemblies of God to name just two. However, a few others--both Mainline and Evangelical--are showing signs of life. The growth has been coming almost exclusively from recent immigrants, especially Hispanics and from Africa. In fact, 71% of the growth in traditional Roman Catholic congregations has been from Hispanics. Further, the cultural center of Catholicism in the US is shifting from the Northwest to the South along with this change. In addition, multiracial churches, once almost unheard of, are increasingly the "new normal" across the board.

Globally, Christianity continues to be the world's largest religion. It's greatest area of growth has been primarily in Africa, followed by Asia. However, it should be pointed that studies have indicated that the Americanized version of Christianity overseas is viewed with the most suspension and has seen the least success in sustained growth. Some blame this on the so-called "Trump Effect", that is, the "America First" or "Pax Americana" resulting from Trump's alleged populist nationalism. Those denominations which promote a more "liberal" or inclusive ideology seem to be showing the most signs of growth (this includes opposition to the concept of "American Exceptionalism").

Of course, this isn't to say that the once popular ideology of Liberation Theology, an admixture of Marxism and Evangelicalism popular among the poor in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, is making a comeback, at least not yet. Thus, globally, Christianity continues to thrive, as well as domestically, though primarily among nonwhite populations as well as churches which embrace multiracial, and thus multiculturalism along with a more liberal and modern interpretation of the scriptures which can embrace different cultures and traditions different from the longstanding Western or European version of Christianity.

So what's the long term future of religion, especially Christianity? Some might cite Islam which appears to be growing on all fronts, especially in Asia and Europe. However, that notion is deceptive. In Europe Islam is on the rise to be sure. However, the explanation is actually multi fold. First, the population of native Europeans has been on steady decline since the end of World War Two. In fact, the birthrate isn't capable of even maintaining the current population; bare one child per couple.

Meanwhile, the EU's catastrophic open door immigration policy has led to a rise of immigrants, often low skilled and largely uneducated, flooding European cities. The majority of these immigrants are from Africa and the Middle East, and most are Muslim. The birth rate among these individuals is approximately five children per family; nearly doubling or tripling every few generations. At that rate, they will easily overtake the native European population within a matter of a few decades (in many communities this has already happened).

In addition, since the end of the last war, religious attendance has also been on the decline. Combine this will the rise of Muslim immigrants, and we can see Europe's pending disaster, especially if we include the refusal of the various governments to enforce existing laws, allowing the application of Sharia, and failure to protect the local population from violence, harassment, intimidation, or enforcing acceptance of "no go" zones and changing cultural and social norms. As a, interesting side note, while the Muslim population abroad increases, the birthrate among Arab populations in their home countries are on the decline.

In Asia, it's not a matter of population replacement or a decline in religious adherence. It is, however, the result of Muslim extremism and in some case (such as China), a history of general religious suppression which has been the main cause. This is especially true when other religions, such as Christianity or Buddhism, have been officially prohibited. In other cases, it has been a reluctance of the various governments to respond to the increased religious and cultural violence such as in India, Nepal, or the Philippines.

Lastly, there has been a fear by more religiously tolerant Muslim nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, or Syria, to counter the violence out of fear of sparking a more direct conflict with extremist (much like trying to appease a bully). The result is that certain minorities such as the Kurds, the Yazidis, and Assyrian Christians are sacrificed and face slavery and genocide.

Finally, we need to address the "none" I mentioned earlier. The "none" are not a single monolithic group. They are, actually, individuals who do not adhere to a particular religion, aka secular. Some are agnostic while others are atheists, while others are pagan, Wiccans, Humanists, and so forth. It's interesting to note that the single largest group are, in fact, those who identify as secular. What's more is that secularism is the world's fastest growing religious demographic. Even Islam is quickly losing the war against secularism, as is Hinduism, Buddhism, and even paganism which a few years ago was seen as the fastest growing religion in the world.

In Saudi Arabia, an estimated 24% are privately non-believers. In Lebanon it's 37%. Ironically, one explanation has been a direct result of the increase in Islamic extremism. It should be pointed out that secularism too can be just as extreme and intolerant as Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, especially when it comes to forcing people, especially children, into situations where they have to accept certain lifestyles or prohibits them from their own religious or social expression (case in point, requiring children to attend LGBTQ programs or fining people for not using the "correct" pronouns). Neither form of extremism is acceptable.

So, do we still trust in God? The answer is a qualified yes. Americans are still a generally religious bunch. However, our long held notion of religion is changing. It's no longer a mono-racial institution. It is increasingly comprised of individuals who weren't born in America and whose native language isn't English. Most are Hispanic, African, or even Asian. We also have a broader diversity of religions than ever before, especially among Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims, as well as nontraditional belief systems such as paganism and Wicca. It's also increasingly more socially liberal than it once was.

In addition, Americans, as well as the world, has increasingly become secular. It's not that they reject God (or a higher power) so much as they reject organized religion with its inflexible dogma. It's also that they see both the good and bad in all religious systems, especially its intolerance of others. However, as stated earlier, it too has its extremist who attempt to push their beliefs on others including the acceptance of specific lifestyles, behaviors, and/or prohibit others from the practice of their beliefs which must be curtailed. We have to remember that in this interconnected world, that each must be accorded the right to their own religious expressions without interfering with the expression of others so called as no one is harmed in the process.




Gallup Poll: Religion


Pew Research: Religious Landscape Study



Where is Christianity headed? The View from 2019



The Rise of Humanism


The World's New Major Religion: No Religion

The Ban on Sausage and Pork: Has Germany Become A Nation of Limp "Wieners"?

Has Germany become a nation of limp "wieners"? Well, it appears so, at least according to Daniel Günther, a party representative of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Günther claims that the German government has quietly requested a stoppage of this spreading ban on their national food---pork, and in particular, sausage. Under this ban, sausage and other pork products are being pulled from schools, public canteens (cafeterias) and other places supported by taxpayer money where Moslems might go and eat. In addition, the German government has requested that restaurant owners and food venders not delete pork related products not removed from their menus; many have claimed they have removed pork products for "religious considerations". Apparently, however, pork products will still available to customers by specific requests. Now, you might be wondering what horrible tragedy has befallen the German People to issue this draconian prohibition of their national food---perhaps some "mad pig disease" or other health issue? Nope. A strike by pig farmers, driving up the prices? Not even close.

The culprit behind this ludicrous restriction is the Moslem "refugees". You see, the German government is scared that the presence of pork would agitate the pork-prohibited Moslem population, which in turn might "offend" them and result in more disturbances. Now we wouldn't want that would we? It's like inviting guests into your home and having them throw out your furniture, clothes, and whatever else they don't like and you doing nothing about it. Apparently, a few Moslem clerics had "demanded" that Germany no longer sell pork because the mere presence of it is considered to be "an insult" to Islam, which prohibits the eating of or mere contact directly or indirectly with pork, has sparked this recent ban---plus the implied threat of violence as a further incentive. So, rather than simply not eat the pork or to avoid it altogether and leave everybody else along, they decided it was best if all Germans were to forego pork. After all, in order to integrate into the German society, it should be the German People who should be the ones to conform.

As an aside, it was some of these same groups who also demanded that Germany stop selling alcohol, starting with the beer--- Germany's national drink going back centuries and one of its top exports. The so-called "request" was made during the 2015 annual Oktoberfest, when the Mayor of Munich was given a petition signed by several Moslem clerics demanding that Oktoberfest be stopped due to the consumption of alcohol, the intermingling of men and women, as well as the dress of the women themselves which they found to be "provocative", otherwise there was the usual threat of potential disturbances at future events. The mayor politely declined, but I imagine security will be heightened all the same.

Apparently all this makes sense to German Chancellor Merkel and other German officials, yet little is being done to stem this rising tide of "demands" backed by threats of violence which has all the subtlety of an extortion racket run by the mob. If you'll recall, during New Year's Eve celebrations, approximately 90 German women were physically assaulted, beaten, and/or raped (including one female police officer). Originally, authorities tried to dismiss and downplay the attacks until the numbers of reports became so large it couldn't be swept under the rug any longer (other similar attacks were reported in Denmark, Norway and Sweden). However, few arrests were made and some in the Moslem refugee community claimed the women were the ones responsible for what happened. Meanwhile, some local and police officials suggested that German women refrain from going out in public alone or even in some small groups; wear more conservative clothes, less makeup and perfume, or even try not to resist their attackers since it would only make them more aggressive. Nothing like blaming the victims huh? German school girls had already been asked not to wear short skirts or shorts and to reframe from "revealing" tops so as not to "offend" their new Moslem classmates.

As if that wasn't enough, German students were asked to "volunteer" at the refugee camps and do such chores as washing sheets and clothes, sweeping, cleaning, picking up trash, carrying packages, driving individuals back and forth and other character building activities. Punishment for not "volunteering" could include the possibility of a short stint in the German military. Community building at its best. It seems to me that these so-called "refugees" could do well to clean up after themselves rather than rely of German school kids to act like they're servants. There have already been several violent protests in Germany and the Scandinavian countries over the perceived lack of housing--- such as free apartments---resulting in residents (and citizens) being evicted in order to make room for their new occupants. Naturally, along with the "free" housing comes "free" utilities and "free" food--Halal (the Islamic version of Kosher) of course. For some reason, I think back on the Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon and Jordan who barely had decent housing and fresh running water or the Kurdish refugees with not even that who would be grateful for anything.

Then there are the refugees in parts Africa who have nothing but bloated bellies despite billions in international aid thanks to their corrupt governments and warlords who sell the relief food, seeds, tools, medicines, clothing on the black market in order to finance their lifestyles or wars, and yet the demand for handouts continue on a global scale. Relief workers are often chased away, kidnapped or even sometimes murdered. There are times when I think it would be better to supply these grossly malnourished individuals who can barely pass human beings with the weapons and means to overthrow their governments or warlords. At least they'd have a chance to fight back and perhaps receive the global relief sent their way. True, some of the refugees in Germany and other parts of Europe have suffered; suffered terribly, but many aren't even near the war zones and damn few look like they've missed a meal. They've used the exodus simply as an excuse to leave their homelands for what they see as a life of "freedom", meaning that everything will be free for them; someone else will provide for them, and apparently this is because they had been convinced that because they are Moslem they entitled since all non-Moslems---"Kafirs" or infidels ---are inferior and must serve them, or so they're taught by their Imams. Meanwhile very few Syrian Christian, Yazidi, or Kurdish refugees have been allowed entry to Europe. Those few who have did make it have also been beaten and/or robbed while in the refugee camps. We also can't forget that many terrorists have made their way into and out of these refugee camps, as nearly always, hiding among the innocent.

While sausage and other pork products are still legal in Germany, the fact that there are those in Germany calling for a voluntary restriction or outright banning of pork plus the other and more official "voluntary" accommodations, only goes to show the extent nations will go to hide from conflict the way you would from a bully, even at the risk of the destruction of their culture, traditions, and eventually their nation. I tend to hesitate mentioning the war when talking about Germany out of respect to their sensibilities, however, it appears to me that the Germans lost more than war in 1945. They lost their self-respect and identity as Germans while some have obviously lost their backbone as well. The great German Statesman, Otto von Bismarck, once famously said "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made". He also said “Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others.” The question then is whether we will learn from the experience of Germany, France, the Balkans, and Scandinavia, or will we too be fools? For more, please check out the links below.

Germany: Traditional sausages banned in public canteens out of respect for Moslems
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027664881


Germany Bans Sausages: Pork Banned in cafes and schools
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/650246/Germany-bans-pork-cafes-schools-offending-Muslim-migrants


German Cafes Have Stopped Selling Pork Sausages to Spare Muslim Refugees' Feelings
http://jewishbusinessnews.com/2016/03/07/german-cafes-stop-selling-pork-sausages-to-spare-muslim-refugees-feelings
/

Muslim petition to ban Oktoberfest gaining signatures in Germany
http://www.christianaction.org/news/2015/9/16/muslim-petition-to-ban-oktoberfest-gaining-signatures-in-germany


Visit Munich Oktoberfest, while you still can
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/09/visit-munich-oktoberfest-while-you-still-can/


Germans Shaken by Mass Attacks On Women In Cologne At New Year's Eve
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/german-women-cologne-mass-attacks_us_568bde20e4b0b958f65cda0e

The Suicide of Nations

Recent events in the Middle East have resulted in the largest mass exodus of refugees since the end of World War II. The vast majority of these are Muslims from Syria. The White House announced on September 11th that the United States will take in another 10,000 over the next year. With the US limiting the number of refugees to 70,000 annually, that's still a significant number. Nevertheless, Germany has agreed to accept some 800,000 while tiny isolated Iceland has offered to take in some 100,000. The US State Department has been working the Catholic Counsel of Bishops and the Lutheran Church (which alone has settled over 7600 Somalis in Minnesota while both have become experts on immigration---legal and illegal) to resettle these individuals. States like Kentucky, Vermont, Arizona, Nebraska, Idaho, Michigan, Utah, and both North and South Dakota will get the bulk while South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Montana, and Wyoming will get the least. Of course, this will put increased pressure on these states, several of which that are struggling to meet current levels of need, to provide housing and employment, not to mention an additional drain on social and health services. In terms of jobs, many of these individuals are low skilled with little knowledge of English, making re-education a first priority. However, their low skill levels will also create a potential conflict with other, mostly illegal, immigrates, who are now holding many of those jobs.

In Europe, this potential for conflict has already come to a head. As I mentioned above, Germany is taking in some 800,000 of these fleeing immigrants. France has agreed to take in around 100,000 despite its already heavily Moslem immigrant population. In total, some 300,000 have already fled Syria and surrounding areas, with approximately 200,000 overwhelming the financially struggling Greece along and around 100,000 making their way into Italy. According to some sources, just over 13 million souls have been displaced in

Syria alone (Afghanistan and Eritrea round out the top three nations most impacted by the violence). Two million, mostly Syrian refugees are holed up along and just in the Turkish border.

While many are calling for a return, or at least an ouster of the refugees from their countries, the 1951 UN "Refugee Convention" requires nations to accept individuals who are fleeing countries where their lives are endangered. In addition, the EU has mandated an open immigration policy, which has already heavily burden nations like Sweden and Norway and has nearly collapsed their once highly successful democratic socialist economic systems. Nevertheless, countries like Sweden have already accepted just under 68,000 refugees (Germany has thus far taken in close to 100,000). Other countries such as Hungary and Macedonia, have closed their borders to the refugees, despite the onslaught. Thus far, the Hungarian Government has been, albeit reluctantly, allowing refugees to pass through the country as they make their way to Austria (which is accepting 80,000 refugees), Germany, and other Western European nations, including the US which has agree to accept up to 10,000. The International Rescue Committee and United Nations has expressed their dismay and anger at the United States for agree to accept 100,000; apparently without consideration of the thousands the US has already accepted and the illegal immigration crisis (unlike Europe, the US is not bound by the same laws mandating acceptance of illegal immigrants---at least not yet).

Nevertheless, things have been unraveling quickly. Refugees and immigrants have been pouring in at higher than expected rates, overwhelming relief efforts with some refugee centers running low on food, water, medicine, and tents (and this doesn't take into consideration clothing, transportation, emergency needs, or sanitation needs). In addition, thousands more from Africa having been

attempting to enter Europe through Spain and southern France. These have typically been the immigrants which have been coming for years since the EU's open door policy has been in effect and have overloaded the social safety networks in many of the host countries. The result has been Germany's efforts to "reinstate" border controls (Germany's Merkel has been urging other frontline European nations to do likewise).

It also looks like many of these refugees and migrants have brought their ethnic and religious hatreds with them. Germany, Italy, and Greece have all reported violent assaults as various opposing groups have come in contact with each other. Other countries, including France and the UK are bracing for similar violent outbreaks. There is little doubt European authorities are ill equipped to handle the level of hatred and open violence that is coming their way. Also, approximately 12 ISIS operatives have been caught crossing into some of the hosts nations so far (in one instance, the suspect was carrying dozens of fake Syrian passports). How many have crossed undetected is anybody's guess, but I think we'll soon get a good idea firsthand.

Lastly, but perhaps more significantly, the overwhelming majority of the refugees entering Europe are Moslem (as have been a significant number of the Africans mentioned earlier). Yet, the most persecuted of the all those in the Middle East has been the Coptic, Assyrian, Chaldean and Syrian Christians. These were the ones whom ISIS attempted to surround and capture as they fled into the mountains with the Kurds. Meanwhile, hundreds, if not more, have been captured, tortured, and ultimately murdered in the most gruesome ways imaginable---men, women, children (including babies), the handicapped, and seniors. Even family pets weren't spared. A few young girls and women have been sold off to become sex slaves before finally being decapitated. However, these Christians seem to be having the hardest time finding sanctuary.

Some towns and communities have expressed a willingness to accept refugees or migrant families, provided they were Christian in order to preserve their local character and culture (and some have mentioned to lessen the likelihood of terrorists).The country of Slovakia, for instance, said it would accept Christian refugees only. Cyprus too has expressed an interest in Christian only refugees. Not unexpectedly, politicians all the way around have condemned this as being "racist" or "discriminatory"; claiming that Christians aren't any less persecuted than other minorities. Hogwash. Of those few Christian families who've at least made it to the refugee camps, many are intimidated, attacked and beaten by their fellow refugees who happen also to be Moslems.

I think the Europe we've always known is vanishing before our eyes. Europe has been inundated for decades by individuals who have little or no education not to mention poor work skills. Some, however, have taken the opportunities afforded them by their hosts countries to educate themselves and learn viable employment skills. However, those have been the minority. Most seem more interested to live in their homogenous enclaves while drawing on the already strained social nets instead of trying to integrate themselves into their new homeland. The once highly successful economic systems of Scandinavia---the socialist democracies so much hated by the corporate capitalists for defying their economics of greed---are failing; not because of ideological flaws, but because these new immigrants lack the education, work skills and yes, the work ethic needed to sustain a system which requires everyone to pitch in equally in order to reap the benefits equally.

With the decline in religious observance throughout Europe and a birthrate which has been in decline since the end of the Second World War, whole sections of cities, like London, Manchester, York, Paris, Marseille, Hamburg, Dusseldorf, Solingen, and Lisbon have become unwelcoming Moslem enclaves thanks to higher than average birthrates as well as the recent immigration, where Sharia law is enforced. Even non-Moslem women simply walking through are harassed if their heads are uncovered or if they're unaccompanied by a male adult. Pets, especially dogs, are very much unwelcome ("unclean"). Government authorities pretend they maintain control, but in reality they can do little more than lodge complaints with the local ruling council. Meanwhile, churches are being converted into Mosques. Local traditions, foods, and customs are being supplanted. In Germany recently, girls have been instructed not to wear short skirts to schools as to avoid "offending" Moslem students and their parents. School curriculums are being changed to fit with acceptable classes for Moslems. Being overwhelming Christian for centuries, most European schools, hospitals, and so forth often display a Christian cross. Well, that too is changing as they are being asking to remove them. Why? I think you why.

While it's unlikely that any European nation will face a Moslem majority, they will see significant increases in Moslem populations and can expect a ramping up of demands for change as they seek to increase their economic and political influence. Smaller countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, Iceland, as well as Sweden, Norway and Denmark will likely be the most impacted. Nevertheless, the demographics will change. There will be less of the stereotypical fair skinned blond hair blue eyed Northern European or the rosie cheeked English or the freckled red-haired Scot. Even the French will see change. Gone too will much of Europe's culture and traditions I suspect, along with its scandalous "liberal" social attitudes. In place of ringing church bells there will be calls to

prayers from converted Cathedrals. Its economy will likely struggle along while some may fail altogether as Europe will face a steep re-education and training curve while bearing a crushing influx on its social safety net. Europe may also face a healthcare crisis as possible old diseases are re-introduced into society.

Lastly, I think Americans need to pay more attention. While much of what's happening some 5000 miles away, many of these changes will be---and are---on our shores too. We are, as the Greeks are saying, becoming an "occupied" country. We have at least 12 million illegal immigrants here; many if not most of whom having no interest whatsoever of integrating into society. This influx has and will continue to drive down wages and evaporate benefits as we cope with excess demand versus availability of jobs while higher paying jobs are exported to lower pay countries. It has already strained our social net to the max. We will see an even greater entrenchment of ethnic communities as well as an increase in racial, religious, and ethnic conflicts as centuries old hatreds are brought here and the shrinking tax dollar for social services pits one group against the other while a few attempt to goad the more successful into feeling "guilty" for grievances not of their making; assuming that it's better to live off public handouts than accept responsibility for their own lack of effort as others have, starting with taking education seriously. Meanwhile, we have a government that is no longer "ours". So perhaps we are "occupied" after all.

As Bob Dylan once sang, "you don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows" and I'm feeling a chill in the air.


Why Europe's refugee crisis has reached a tipping point
http://news.yahoo.com/asylum-in-europe--the-difference-between-migrants-and-refugees-and-what-s-at-stake-183639355.html


Why is the EU struggling with migrants and asylum?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24583286

Archbishop of Canterbury: UK plans to take in 20,000 Syrians discriminates against Christians
https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/category/christian-refugees/

Pew Research Report: The Future Of The Global Moslem Population
http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe/

Irish 'Ayes' are Smiling

Well, Pope Francis is in a dither. It seems that Ireland has just recently become the very first country to officially recognize gay marriage following a national referendum on May 23rd. Ireland has been staunch Catholic since the early 400's. Just 100 years ago, Ireland didn't permit divorces and still remains opposed to abortions. Nevertheless, it appears that pink is the new green on the Emerald Isle. To be honest, with all the commotion going on in the world, like wars, depleting food sources, energy shortages, troubles in the Middle East, terrorism, climate change, decreasing supplies of fresh water, an unsustainable population rate, jobs, pollution, America's loss of its democratic republic to a increasingly fascist oligarchy, a failing global economic system, I wouldn't think gay marriage in Ireland would even be on the radar for the Vatican.

So, how many people does this ruling affect? Well, apparently not that many. Approximately 4% of Ireland's population claim to be either gay or bisexual, though some surveys hint that the real number could be closer to 10% since many have refused to answer the question. What may have added to the Pope's ire is the report that church attendance dropped, not just in Ireland, but throughout all Europe and the Middle East (church attendance in Europe is down approximately 40% over recent years). Of course attendance in the Middle East could be partially attributed to the recent persecutions of Christians in general and the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church in particular throughout not just the Middle East, but in Africa and parts of Asia or anywhere else where there is a rising tide of radical Islam. An estimated 24,000 Christians have been murdered so far by ISIS while another 700,000+ Christians are in flux as they try to avoid ISIS and other extremist Moslems; Moslems, by the way, who have declared Christianity to be "enemy #1" while dozens, if not more, churches are destroyed along with ancient historical sites. It seems that only the Catholics in Latin America has been immune from persecution...so far. On the "bright side", President Obama is poised to bring thousands of Moslems to the United States rather than these Christians who are under threat and facing a very real holocaust of their own.

Here in the States, gay marriage has been largely unpopular, especially in more conservative States, but there are signs that resistance against gay marriage is weakening. 37 States have legislation upholding gay marriage while 13 States have legislation prohibiting it. Ultimately, it will come down to the Supreme Court, which brings me to the heart of this article. The more conservative Christian churches and seminaries openly condemn gay marriage while the moderate and liberal religious groups have been mostly accepting if not at least more open minded. Among Millennials, who are replacing the Babyboomers as the largest voting bloc, gay, bisexual, or transgendered lives are a non-issue. That's something that the conservatives will have to get past if they are to remain a viable political power, at least on the national level. Otherwise, Millennials will leave the conservatives in the dust. In fact, Millennials are already forming their own socio-political identities which certainly leans Left and preferably non-partisan. Survey after survey show these Millennials to favor democratic-socialism while also reflecting a streak of libertarianism. In voting patterns so far, Millennials have tended to vote Democrat and Independent most often with Republicans coming in a distant third. It's not that they have any specific loyalty to the Democratic Party or Indies, it's just that they don't like the GOP's vision of America, which brings us back to the topic gay marriage. Unless the Republican Party (as well as other conservative parties and political groups) make a course change, they will---to quote Trotsky---wind up in the "dustbin of history". No one says they have to like it, but they do have to accept the reality of it. To borrow another quote, this time from the "Iron Chancellor", Otto von Bismarck, "politics is the art of the possible".

As for my personal opinion (and my apologies in advance if I step on any toes), I can't say that I have a problem with those who are gay, bisexual, or transgendered. I've always been heterosexual (so sue me). I've always thought that marriage was a relationship between a man and woman. It has been the backbone of civilization through the ages and it served a practical function. Civilizations such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Sumerians accepted a form of bisexual relationships, though the opposing sex arrangement was considered the most acceptable. This was also true of the Greeks who never sanctioned any sort of same gender marriage. In Roman, it was much the same, though not overt publically and was generally frowned upon.

When I ran for Metro Council in 2001, I was endorsed by the Fairness Campaign (the Fairness Campaign was a predominately LGBT organization which was promoting the Fairness Ordinance prohibiting anyone regardless of their sexual orientation--straight, gay, bisexual, or transgendered---from be discriminated against). I was one of the very few who answered the questionnaire and was willing to sit for an interview. I was quite truthful in both the questionnaire and interview. Briefly, I stated that I didn't believe in discrimination of any sort based on their sexual preferences or self-identity, race, religion, gender, or place of origin. As a result, I also received the endorsement of several other LGBT organizations such as The Letter. My opponent, however, was strictly against it though admitted in a interview that he hadn't read the proposed ordinance. Individuals were encouraged to call, email, and send threatening messages because of my acceptance of the endorsements. I recall trying to educate them, but it was mostly hopeless. Nevertheless, the ordinance passed by a substantial margin.

When I ran for the State Legislature in 2004, I received a similar questionnaire from most of the same groups. I again answered their questions exactly the same way, though some withheld their endorsement this time because of their personal hang-ups with the political party and not me. There were a few in the party leadership who disapproved but that was their problem not mine. Besides, I've always been secure enough with my own masculinity not to feel threatened. All the same, I was supported by the nation's top conservative gay, bisexual and transgendered political organization. As I explained at the time, I am strictly heterosexual and I believe marriage as such should be a union between one man and one woman. Nevertheless, I would not support any legislation which promoted discrimination in any form. To be clear (and here is my obligatory disclaimer statement), I've had numerous gay, bisexual, and lesbian friends; still do. I lived in San Francisco during the 1970's, at a time when individuals were just coming "out of the closet". I even stood on the sidewalk to watch the second "Gay Pride" parade (actually I happened to be at a Kosher deli eating a sandwich and walked out to see what the hubbub was all about, but that muddles the point). I even knew Harvey Milk, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who was assassinated along with Mayor Moscone in 1978. Milk was the first openly gay politician ever to be elected in California. While in the service, I discretely "protected" a couple of Navy corpsmen who were in a same-sex relationship. Had it come out that I knew and didn't report it, I would have been in some pretty serious trouble too. Still, had they been found out, they would have literally been booted out with a General Discharge within 24 hours. These individuals were good corpsmen with exemplary military records and I wasn't going to let that happen. I've also worked with numerous individuals who weren't straight over the years. As with every group, there are always some who are nice and some who are jerks. I have no issues with that since I treat people the way I way I want to be treated. I also treat them as they treat me. As an aside, should I should ever run for office again, I hope I can count on their support
.

While I don't personally agree with non-straight relationships, I still must acknowledge that none of these relationships are, frankly, any of my business. I have enough problems living my life without managing someone else's. Each us exist in this time and space for a some reason which may or may not be entirely clear to us. We can say it's all a part of "God's plan" or part of some deity's grand design. We can attribute it to some random fluke in the universe, or simply claim that our existence is nothing more than a meaningless flip of the comic coin. Nevertheless, we are here for now. In our fleeting moment of existance, we are free to choose what sort of life we want to live within certain defined parameters set by society. Thus, we are free to choose to be with those who bring us happiness and fill whatever personal void we each have to the degree we allow. Accordingly, what innate right do we have to decide for someone else who can be a friend or lover. We can't decide what level of emotional or ever personal comfort and security someone brings to someone else. We can only make that decision for ourselves.

Historically, both governments and religious institutions (which for most of history, has been one and the same) have sought ways to control the population through its rules and dogma. Slowly, society has rolled much of that back, giving the individual power over themselves while both government and religious institutions continue to seek ways to reassert their authority. In this, Ireland's voter have acted in unison to reclaim personal responsibility over their lives much to the consternation of the Vatican and no doubt to conservatives in general. At what point should the government continue to exert its control over the lives of two adult individuals who freely choose to make a purely personal decision regarding their relationship? Do we really need the government's "permission" in the form of State sanctioned license? If we choose to seek to invoke the blessing of God or some other divinity, shouldn't that decision be between the two individuals and that religious institution? If a Church disapproves, fine. There may be others which will approve. Ultimately, churches and their like will grow or decline based on their ability to meet the needs of the community the same way businesses would prosper or close based on allowing or forbidding smoking (employees are, of course, free to work there or not, depending on their acceptance of the risk just as customers are free to eat there or somewhere else. The business which best meets the needs of the local market will succeed while the others either adapt or close). This really comes down to personal choice. Meanwhile, as far the State is concern, the religious institutions can still record and report the marriages for the government's tax records. As for the Irish, congratulations on having the moral certainty to made a bold statement to the world. Now, how about a pint?



How Many People in Ireland are Gay?
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-many-people-in-ireland-are-gay-1.2155679


37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same Sex Marriage Bans.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857


The New Exodus: Christians flee ISIS in the Middle East
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new-exodus-christians-flee-isis-middle-east-316785.html


Vatican: Irish gay marriage vote a 'defeat for humanity'
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/27/vatican-irish-gay-marriage-vote-a-defeat-for-humanity/21187566/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-853854980