- that Kansas City is located in Missouri?
- that the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith was written in 1677?
- that many so called faith healers need to wear glasses?
- that if the Pink Floyd song One of These Days is played during the "Caribou killing" scene in the film Apocalypse Now, there are some eerie coincidences?
- that Plainsong is a song by The Cure, featuring singer Rob Smith, and was also the name of a Christian music company that published music written by a musician named Rob Smith? (unrelated)
- that Saskatchewan in Canada exports more Lentils than anywhere else in the world?
- that Robert Plant managed to sing "Oh, here's to my sweet Satan. The one whose little path would make me sad, whose power is Satan. He'll give those with him six six six; there was a little toolshed where he made us suffer, sad Satan." backwards?
2006-01-31
Some interesting factoids
Did you know...
2006-01-30
Really strange weather in Northern Australia (pictures)
There appears to be a tropical cyclone developing in Australia's north. This is not normally unusual - this is, after all, the time of year that cyclones develop in that part of the world. What is unusual is that the cyclone appears to be developing over land. More than that, it appears to be developing over an area that is not exactly known for its wetness - Australia's semi-arid north. In the BOM satellite pic below, you can clearly see a massive swirling cloud around 20° S 130° E. The swirling cloud is moving in a clockwise direction, which, in the southern hemisphere, is indicative of a low pressure system.
A just-released BOM synoptic chart shows that the low pressure system is a whoppingly low 955 hPa. And look to the East, there we see Tropical Cyclone "Jim" heading east towards the Solomon Islands. Notice what pressure that system is - 975 hPa. This means that the low centred over Australia's north is a more intense low than the cyclone to the north-east. They haven't called the low a cyclone yet - but for all intents and purposes there is one there!
I keep a daily eye on the ENSO figures these days, and things are looking good for a La Nina event. As the following graph shows, there is a sea temperature difference between Darwin and Tahiti of around +13 degrees. This means that, historically, Australia's north should produce more low pressure systems and cyclones and cause a lot more rainfall. Moreover, in the winter months, a positive ENSO result (indicating La Nina) means that there is a greater chance that these low pressure systems will continue, and bring a wetter winter to Australia's East Coast. La Nina is the opposite of El Nino, whereby low pressure systems are harder to develop because the water is cooler in Australia's north... and causes droughts in Eastern Australia. I'm sort of guessing that the land-based cyclone developing in Australia's north is a result of an increasing La Nina effect.
Here's the BOM weather warnings:
IDD20510
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Northern Territory
Darwin Regional Forecasting Centre
FLOOD THREAT ADVICE
Issued by the BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY, DARWIN
at 1024 CST Sunday 29 JANUARY 2006
AREA INVOLVED
North of the Alice Springs District.
RAINFALL SUMMARY
Widespread falls of 10-20mm north of the Alice Springs district with lighter
falls across the northeast Top End. Heavier falls 40-80mm over the far southern
central Top End, eastern Victoria River District and into the western Barkly.
Isolated falls to near 100mm.
WEATHER SUMMARY
A deep monsoon low lies over the eastern Victoria River District near Elliott
and has recently moved a little to the southwest. The monsoon trough extends
from the low and across the Barkly and these features are the main focus for
rainfall, particularly the low. The low is expected to remain slow moving until
at least Tuesday.
FORECAST for the rest of today and Monday
Widespread falls 15-20mm and scattered moderate falls 20-50mm. Isolated heavy
falls of 60-80mm in the far southern Top End, western Barkly and Victoria River
District may lead to significant stream rises and flooding of low lying areas
while other falls may cause localised flooding and significant stream rises.
OUTLOOK for Tuesday and Wednesday
Widespread falls of 10-20mm, though less frequent about the northern Top End.
The active slow moving monsoon trough and low are expected to lie across central
parts of the NT between Katherine and Tennant Creek. The heavier falls about the
low will be of about 60-80mm while scattered falls of 40-60mm falls will
continue in the Victoria River District and across the Barkly and Roper-McArthur
Districts. The movement of the low from Tuesday is difficult to predict, but the
Victoria River District is still likely to receive some heavy falls with a
possible trend to increasing falls in the southern Victoria River and
northwestern Alice Springs District if the low drifts southwards. These falls
may lead to localised flooding and significant stream rises.
NEXT ADVICE
Around 11 am Monday
DARWIN Regional Forecasting Centre.
A just-released BOM synoptic chart shows that the low pressure system is a whoppingly low 955 hPa. And look to the East, there we see Tropical Cyclone "Jim" heading east towards the Solomon Islands. Notice what pressure that system is - 975 hPa. This means that the low centred over Australia's north is a more intense low than the cyclone to the north-east. They haven't called the low a cyclone yet - but for all intents and purposes there is one there!
I keep a daily eye on the ENSO figures these days, and things are looking good for a La Nina event. As the following graph shows, there is a sea temperature difference between Darwin and Tahiti of around +13 degrees. This means that, historically, Australia's north should produce more low pressure systems and cyclones and cause a lot more rainfall. Moreover, in the winter months, a positive ENSO result (indicating La Nina) means that there is a greater chance that these low pressure systems will continue, and bring a wetter winter to Australia's East Coast. La Nina is the opposite of El Nino, whereby low pressure systems are harder to develop because the water is cooler in Australia's north... and causes droughts in Eastern Australia. I'm sort of guessing that the land-based cyclone developing in Australia's north is a result of an increasing La Nina effect.
Here's the BOM weather warnings:
IDD20510
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Northern Territory
Darwin Regional Forecasting Centre
FLOOD THREAT ADVICE
Issued by the BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY, DARWIN
at 1024 CST Sunday 29 JANUARY 2006
AREA INVOLVED
North of the Alice Springs District.
RAINFALL SUMMARY
Widespread falls of 10-20mm north of the Alice Springs district with lighter
falls across the northeast Top End. Heavier falls 40-80mm over the far southern
central Top End, eastern Victoria River District and into the western Barkly.
Isolated falls to near 100mm.
WEATHER SUMMARY
A deep monsoon low lies over the eastern Victoria River District near Elliott
and has recently moved a little to the southwest. The monsoon trough extends
from the low and across the Barkly and these features are the main focus for
rainfall, particularly the low. The low is expected to remain slow moving until
at least Tuesday.
FORECAST for the rest of today and Monday
Widespread falls 15-20mm and scattered moderate falls 20-50mm. Isolated heavy
falls of 60-80mm in the far southern Top End, western Barkly and Victoria River
District may lead to significant stream rises and flooding of low lying areas
while other falls may cause localised flooding and significant stream rises.
OUTLOOK for Tuesday and Wednesday
Widespread falls of 10-20mm, though less frequent about the northern Top End.
The active slow moving monsoon trough and low are expected to lie across central
parts of the NT between Katherine and Tennant Creek. The heavier falls about the
low will be of about 60-80mm while scattered falls of 40-60mm falls will
continue in the Victoria River District and across the Barkly and Roper-McArthur
Districts. The movement of the low from Tuesday is difficult to predict, but the
Victoria River District is still likely to receive some heavy falls with a
possible trend to increasing falls in the southern Victoria River and
northwestern Alice Springs District if the low drifts southwards. These falls
may lead to localised flooding and significant stream rises.
NEXT ADVICE
Around 11 am Monday
DARWIN Regional Forecasting Centre.
2006-01-29
Not saying the "I" word
The latest editorial from the New York Times, Spies, Lies and Wiretaps, is a wonderfully dense text that outlines clearly the massive problems facing George Bush and his illegal NSA wiretaps. One by one, the editorial exposes and destroys the cynical arguments put up by the president and his staff in defence of their actions.
But you can almost see the writer/s of the editorial wondering how far they should go. They build up a big case... and then, nothing.
The editorial should have been more courageous. Rather than ending with a limp reminder to the Congress that they should "rein in" the president and "not betray the public once again" they should have been more strident. Maybe it was the fear of being labeled partisan. The Times has, in recent weeks, been highly critical of the Bush administration, but there is one word they have yet to print - "Impeachment".
I know that the Times has a long and glorious journalistic history, but the last few years has seen three major journalistic scandals that have tarnished their reputation: Jayson Blair, Judith Miller and the decision to withhold reporting on the illegal NSA wiretaps for twelve months. Their integrity in tatters, the Times deserves to fold, and the journalists who wish to maintain their own reputation need to jump a sinking ship.
But as the ship sinks, it would be wonderful if it takes the Bush Administration with it. Two out of the three scandals I just mentioned directly benefited the president: The first, the Judith Miller scandal, allowed the administration to plant false news stories in the Times (and thus in other Mainstream media publications) in order to bolster the case for invading Iraq; the second, the illegal NSA wiretaps, was kept from the public for a full twelve months until the Times belatedly reported it a few months ago, thus allowing George Bush a reasonably scandal-free presidential campaign in 2004 - one wonders how Bush would have fared had the news been broken then?
The impression that I now have is that the Times, humiliated by their failure to behave ethically and angry at how they have been used by the White House, has now decided to target the administration. Drawing upon what is left of their reputation, the Times has begun to forcefully disagree with the president's decisions, expose the administration's faults, and call for action. This activity may be considered "partisan" by supporters of the Bush administration, but, to me, it is simply the result of various revelations over the last 12 months that show the adminstration's incompetence and lies. While it is important to remain neutral in its factual reporting, the Times does have a responsibility to editorialise for the good of the American people - which is why it has taken this recent anti-Bush stance.
But, as I said, "Impeachment" is missing. If the Times is truly concerned for the people of America then shouldn't they be as clear and as truthful as they can? While they have exposed the administration's lies and illegalities, why not take such an argument to its logical conclusion? Why not say "If the president has broken the law, then congress should seriously consider impeachment"? How hard is it to print that? Such a sentence should have been added to this editorial because, firstly, it summarises the seriousness of the crime in question and, secondly, because it calls for a formal investigation into the matter which allows for a full and fair response to what has happened. Remember, "Impeachment" does not mean removal from office, it means "considering removal from office" - Bill Clinton was impeached, but was not removed from office. If Bush has not committed "high crimes and misdemeanors", then he will walk away from the proceedings an innocent man.
As the Senate Judiciary Hearings into the illegal NSA wiretaps gets closer (I think they meet in early February), the Times (and other members of the mainstream media) should "ramp up" their calls for justice by including impeachment in their editorials. For the Times, at least, it will be a chance for them to restore some pride and maybe, just maybe, drag the Bush administration down with their own sinking ship.
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
But you can almost see the writer/s of the editorial wondering how far they should go. They build up a big case... and then, nothing.
The editorial should have been more courageous. Rather than ending with a limp reminder to the Congress that they should "rein in" the president and "not betray the public once again" they should have been more strident. Maybe it was the fear of being labeled partisan. The Times has, in recent weeks, been highly critical of the Bush administration, but there is one word they have yet to print - "Impeachment".
I know that the Times has a long and glorious journalistic history, but the last few years has seen three major journalistic scandals that have tarnished their reputation: Jayson Blair, Judith Miller and the decision to withhold reporting on the illegal NSA wiretaps for twelve months. Their integrity in tatters, the Times deserves to fold, and the journalists who wish to maintain their own reputation need to jump a sinking ship.
But as the ship sinks, it would be wonderful if it takes the Bush Administration with it. Two out of the three scandals I just mentioned directly benefited the president: The first, the Judith Miller scandal, allowed the administration to plant false news stories in the Times (and thus in other Mainstream media publications) in order to bolster the case for invading Iraq; the second, the illegal NSA wiretaps, was kept from the public for a full twelve months until the Times belatedly reported it a few months ago, thus allowing George Bush a reasonably scandal-free presidential campaign in 2004 - one wonders how Bush would have fared had the news been broken then?
The impression that I now have is that the Times, humiliated by their failure to behave ethically and angry at how they have been used by the White House, has now decided to target the administration. Drawing upon what is left of their reputation, the Times has begun to forcefully disagree with the president's decisions, expose the administration's faults, and call for action. This activity may be considered "partisan" by supporters of the Bush administration, but, to me, it is simply the result of various revelations over the last 12 months that show the adminstration's incompetence and lies. While it is important to remain neutral in its factual reporting, the Times does have a responsibility to editorialise for the good of the American people - which is why it has taken this recent anti-Bush stance.
But, as I said, "Impeachment" is missing. If the Times is truly concerned for the people of America then shouldn't they be as clear and as truthful as they can? While they have exposed the administration's lies and illegalities, why not take such an argument to its logical conclusion? Why not say "If the president has broken the law, then congress should seriously consider impeachment"? How hard is it to print that? Such a sentence should have been added to this editorial because, firstly, it summarises the seriousness of the crime in question and, secondly, because it calls for a formal investigation into the matter which allows for a full and fair response to what has happened. Remember, "Impeachment" does not mean removal from office, it means "considering removal from office" - Bill Clinton was impeached, but was not removed from office. If Bush has not committed "high crimes and misdemeanors", then he will walk away from the proceedings an innocent man.
As the Senate Judiciary Hearings into the illegal NSA wiretaps gets closer (I think they meet in early February), the Times (and other members of the mainstream media) should "ramp up" their calls for justice by including impeachment in their editorials. For the Times, at least, it will be a chance for them to restore some pride and maybe, just maybe, drag the Bush administration down with their own sinking ship.
From the One Salient Overlord Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
2006-01-28
America's Economic Slowdown
America's economy grew at an annual rate of just 1.1% according to figures just released.
We need to understand that this growth rate is quite low compared to growth figures of 3-4% recently. The low growth rate is a warning signal that things are getting a bit tight, but what will the future bring?
Economists are notorious in getting predictions wrong. One of the reasons why I gave up reading The Economist was that they predicted "stellar growth" in 2001 - only for a recession to hit. I myself have dabbled in economic prognostication and realise that I may end up with some egg on my face.
Nevertheless, the "vibe" I'm getting about the world economy, and the American economy in particular, is fairly negative. Because of that I will continue to make broad-based predictions about what will eventually happen, without getting too specific about when.
In a way I'm hedging my bets. This period of low growth could simply be a small hump that will be ironed out by improved rates of growth as the year progresses, or it could presage an economic slowdown or even recession in the near future.
I'm hoping that it will be a recession.
I mean that. I actually do hope there will be an economic slowdown, a rise in unemployment and an increase in personal and corporate bankruptcies. Does this make me evil?
You see, I'm of the opinion that America's economy is imbalanced. Debt levels are just too high, personal savings rates are just too low, the federal budget deficit is just too big, oil production is just too tight and the American consumer is just too contented. In other words, the conditions are actually quite bad.
An economic slowdown / recession is both the result of and the cure for an imbalanced economy. The reason why I am hoping that a recession will occur this year is simply because, if it doesn't, then the recession is postponed. Moreover, the recession that eventually will hit will be much worse than if it occurs sooner. If the pain of the future is brought forward to the present, we can deal with it better.
Commentators have linked the current slowdown with the impact of post-Katrina oil prices. Although there is some truth in this, we need to remember that prices were already quite high in the months before Katrina. Moreover, the price of oil as I type this is is between $67 and $68 per barrel - near the levels experienced in September after Katrina damaged oil distribution infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico. The reason this time is, ostensibly, because of the heightened threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program, but is probably more due to production shortages caused by a drop in Light Sweet Crude extraction.
While it is obvious that the world economy has managed to "shrug off" much of the increases in oil price, a point would naturally be reached where it would begin to affect economic growth rates. Moreover, high oil prices affect longer-term economic growth, which means that high prices now affect economic growth in the future. The tepid growth of the US economy in the last quarter is probably due to both the immediate Katrina shock and the longer-term effects of high oil prices preceding that.
But I'm not willing to lay money on a recession beginning next quarter - while I think it is likely there is just too many variables to make accurate predictions. America may, in fact, continue their debt binge for another year, promoting growth but, eventually, being set up for an even bigger fall.
So while there appears to be two choices - recession or return to a debt-binging growth - there is actually a third outcome: "economic stagnation". By this I don't mean a recession, but a long-term period of low growth, where the economy is expanding at a reasonably slow rate on a continual basis. This is actually my preferred outcome, but will require tighter than normal monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. Faced with an upcoming recession, the Fed may be tempted to drop interest rates again. I think that this may be the wrong move - certainly monetary policy may require loosening, but I think the inflation target needs to be lower than what it is now. Higher interest rates will encourage private saving and kerb domestic spending - both of which will lead to a reduction in debt levels and a re-balancing of the current account. Hopefully this rebalancing will lead to higher levels of consumption in America's trading partners such as Japan and China, which should reduce the trade deficit and, especially in the case of China, rely more upon their own vast domestic consumption as the engine of their economy rather than relying upon the US.
I think the world economy is going to enter a unique period where America's consumption is going to be responsible for less and less of international economic growth. I think countries like America, as well as Britain and Australia, have come to the end of their standard economic systems. Both America and Australia need to address their current account deficits, and the coming period of instability will be a result of, as well as the cure for, the current mess. Still unknown is the effect of Peak Oil and the predicted oil shortage that will come in the next 5-10 years, something that will cause oil prices to rise ever higher, if not the cause of the current rise.
Whatever happens, it will certainly not be boring.
From the Osostrian School Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
We need to understand that this growth rate is quite low compared to growth figures of 3-4% recently. The low growth rate is a warning signal that things are getting a bit tight, but what will the future bring?
Economists are notorious in getting predictions wrong. One of the reasons why I gave up reading The Economist was that they predicted "stellar growth" in 2001 - only for a recession to hit. I myself have dabbled in economic prognostication and realise that I may end up with some egg on my face.
Nevertheless, the "vibe" I'm getting about the world economy, and the American economy in particular, is fairly negative. Because of that I will continue to make broad-based predictions about what will eventually happen, without getting too specific about when.
In a way I'm hedging my bets. This period of low growth could simply be a small hump that will be ironed out by improved rates of growth as the year progresses, or it could presage an economic slowdown or even recession in the near future.
I'm hoping that it will be a recession.
I mean that. I actually do hope there will be an economic slowdown, a rise in unemployment and an increase in personal and corporate bankruptcies. Does this make me evil?
You see, I'm of the opinion that America's economy is imbalanced. Debt levels are just too high, personal savings rates are just too low, the federal budget deficit is just too big, oil production is just too tight and the American consumer is just too contented. In other words, the conditions are actually quite bad.
An economic slowdown / recession is both the result of and the cure for an imbalanced economy. The reason why I am hoping that a recession will occur this year is simply because, if it doesn't, then the recession is postponed. Moreover, the recession that eventually will hit will be much worse than if it occurs sooner. If the pain of the future is brought forward to the present, we can deal with it better.
Commentators have linked the current slowdown with the impact of post-Katrina oil prices. Although there is some truth in this, we need to remember that prices were already quite high in the months before Katrina. Moreover, the price of oil as I type this is is between $67 and $68 per barrel - near the levels experienced in September after Katrina damaged oil distribution infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico. The reason this time is, ostensibly, because of the heightened threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program, but is probably more due to production shortages caused by a drop in Light Sweet Crude extraction.
While it is obvious that the world economy has managed to "shrug off" much of the increases in oil price, a point would naturally be reached where it would begin to affect economic growth rates. Moreover, high oil prices affect longer-term economic growth, which means that high prices now affect economic growth in the future. The tepid growth of the US economy in the last quarter is probably due to both the immediate Katrina shock and the longer-term effects of high oil prices preceding that.
But I'm not willing to lay money on a recession beginning next quarter - while I think it is likely there is just too many variables to make accurate predictions. America may, in fact, continue their debt binge for another year, promoting growth but, eventually, being set up for an even bigger fall.
So while there appears to be two choices - recession or return to a debt-binging growth - there is actually a third outcome: "economic stagnation". By this I don't mean a recession, but a long-term period of low growth, where the economy is expanding at a reasonably slow rate on a continual basis. This is actually my preferred outcome, but will require tighter than normal monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. Faced with an upcoming recession, the Fed may be tempted to drop interest rates again. I think that this may be the wrong move - certainly monetary policy may require loosening, but I think the inflation target needs to be lower than what it is now. Higher interest rates will encourage private saving and kerb domestic spending - both of which will lead to a reduction in debt levels and a re-balancing of the current account. Hopefully this rebalancing will lead to higher levels of consumption in America's trading partners such as Japan and China, which should reduce the trade deficit and, especially in the case of China, rely more upon their own vast domestic consumption as the engine of their economy rather than relying upon the US.
I think the world economy is going to enter a unique period where America's consumption is going to be responsible for less and less of international economic growth. I think countries like America, as well as Britain and Australia, have come to the end of their standard economic systems. Both America and Australia need to address their current account deficits, and the coming period of instability will be a result of, as well as the cure for, the current mess. Still unknown is the effect of Peak Oil and the predicted oil shortage that will come in the next 5-10 years, something that will cause oil prices to rise ever higher, if not the cause of the current rise.
Whatever happens, it will certainly not be boring.
From the Osostrian School Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
2006-01-24
Abortion - the war American Evangelicals can't win
Being an Evangelical Christian means, amongst many other things, that I find abortion to be morally wrong. Based on a number of fairly clear passages in the Bible, Evangelical Christians believe quite strongly that human life begins at conception. For a more detailed summary, go to the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Of course, this tends to conflict with my politically liberal side - or at least with the pro-choice narrative that many liberals have. But I will admit without shame that I see myself as an Evangelical Christian first.
Nevertheless, I feel that many American Evangelicals have got it all wrong when it comes to abortion - specifically when they approach the issue of Roe v. Wade. It cannot be doubted that a very clear majority of Americans support abortion. Polls taken throughout three decades not only indicate this clear majority, it also shows that the numbers in support of abortion are actually increasing.
A USA Today / CNN Gallop poll asked just over a thousand adults recently about various questions regarding current events. They also compared these results to previous polls to discern trend lines.
When asked whether the Supreme Court should completely overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling, 66% of people said no, while 29% said yes. Polls from 1989 to 2002 show a fairly steady 60/35 relationship between those who wish to keep the ruling (the majority) and those who wish the court to overturn it (the minority). In recent polls, the numbers in support of Roe vs Wade have increased from 60% to around 65% today, while numbers who wish to overturn have declined from 35% down to 30%.
Now being an evangelical, I can still believe that abortion is wrong since God's truth is not determined by popular opinion but by God himself. In practice, this means that I see the Bible as divinely inspired. The fact that the majority of Americans support abortion does not make it right.
But even though most evangelicals would say a hearty "Amen" to those previous three sentences, the fact is that these statistics should worry American evangelicals greatly. What these polls indicate is that America is becoming increasingly secular.
US Census figures over the years have shown that "No Religion" has grown from 8.4% in 1991 to 15.0% in 2001 - that is a massive increase and is clearly indicative of a nation that is no longer seeing itself as linked to historical Christianity At the same time, Baptists (a traditionally evangelical grouping) have declined from 19.8% to 17.2%. Newer evangelical movements like the Pentecostals and Charismatics have continued to grow, but are actually quite small in comparison to the rest of America. I don't see any reason why these census figures should change much by the next census.
Essentially my argument is this - America is getting increasingly secular and the churches are still emptying... and as a result of this, more and more people are accepting abortion as being a fact of life.
So what should evangelicals do?
What they should NOT do is what they're doing at the moment. Evangelicals are ripping their garments in woe and anger at the recent anniversary of Roe vs Wade and reaffirming themselves to direct political action to ban abortion in the United States. Money and time is spent in political tooing and froing, lobbying, letter writing and harsh words on radio. Some Christians decide to picket clinics and voice their opposition.
But while it is vitally important that Christians involve themselves in the running of worldly governments, trying to set up a law based entirely on Christian morals and beliefs in a society that has by and large rejected them is, to put it bluntly, incredibly stupid. While I concur with my fellow Evangelicals that abortion is a grevious sin, I cannot see any positive outcome with the direction my brethren are headed at the moment.
The reason is simple - the majority of American people support abortion and are not Evangelical Christians. If this simple fact were not true then maybe, just maybe, Evangelical political action may actually work.
In this article I've used two statistical pieces of evidence. The first is the USA Today / CNN Gallop poll that has been following societal trends towards abortion and which shows an increasing support for it amongst ordinary Americans. The second is the US Census figures which show an ever increasing secularity amongst American society and a marked decline in church membership, even amongst evangelicals. Do I really need to quote any more primary sources to convince anyone that American Evangelicals are declining in both number and influence?
It is obvious that Evangelicals are fighting the wrong battles: The pomposity of Justice Sunday; the naked hate of Westboro Baptist Church; the dirty politics of James Dobson; the sheer hypocrisy of Ralph Reed; the increasingly bizarre Pat Robertson; I have to admit that I am thoroughly embarrassed by all of these public expressions of Evangelical Christianity. The only reason why I remain an Evangelical, and not turn to atheism, is my solid belief that God himself shares my frustrations.
What should evangelicals do? For starters, they should, in the words of Bill O'Reilly, JUST SHUT UP. Words are cheap, and morally outraged Evangelicals are doing no one a favour when they start complaining about how un-Christian America is. What? America isn't Christian? Well duh!
The second thing evangelicals should do is get back to the basics - knowing and living the gospel of Christ and the Word of God. It's amazing, but ironically the Bible is the least read document in American churches. Instead of preaching from the Bible, most evangelicals preach a spiritualized self-help philosophy based more on Anthony Robbins than the Spirit-inspired word of God. Some even preach the "health and wealth" heresy that will ruin the lives of many once the next recession hits. Hey, fellow Evangelicals, the answer is simple - just teach what the Bible says, not what you want it to say. And preach Christ crucified, died and risen again.
The third thing evangelicals should do is interact with the world lovingly. This does not mean compromise or airy-fairly relativism, but it does mean letting your actions match your words. It also means shutting up (again) and listening to people.
And who knows, some of these people you deal with may end up becoming your friends. More than that - shock horror! - they may even choose to not have an abortion because of your influence! Chances are that this will work much better than bombing clinics or paying corrupt lobbyists to push a Roe-hating federal judge through congress...
From the Theosalient Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Of course, this tends to conflict with my politically liberal side - or at least with the pro-choice narrative that many liberals have. But I will admit without shame that I see myself as an Evangelical Christian first.
Nevertheless, I feel that many American Evangelicals have got it all wrong when it comes to abortion - specifically when they approach the issue of Roe v. Wade. It cannot be doubted that a very clear majority of Americans support abortion. Polls taken throughout three decades not only indicate this clear majority, it also shows that the numbers in support of abortion are actually increasing.
A USA Today / CNN Gallop poll asked just over a thousand adults recently about various questions regarding current events. They also compared these results to previous polls to discern trend lines.
When asked whether the Supreme Court should completely overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling, 66% of people said no, while 29% said yes. Polls from 1989 to 2002 show a fairly steady 60/35 relationship between those who wish to keep the ruling (the majority) and those who wish the court to overturn it (the minority). In recent polls, the numbers in support of Roe vs Wade have increased from 60% to around 65% today, while numbers who wish to overturn have declined from 35% down to 30%.
Now being an evangelical, I can still believe that abortion is wrong since God's truth is not determined by popular opinion but by God himself. In practice, this means that I see the Bible as divinely inspired. The fact that the majority of Americans support abortion does not make it right.
But even though most evangelicals would say a hearty "Amen" to those previous three sentences, the fact is that these statistics should worry American evangelicals greatly. What these polls indicate is that America is becoming increasingly secular.
US Census figures over the years have shown that "No Religion" has grown from 8.4% in 1991 to 15.0% in 2001 - that is a massive increase and is clearly indicative of a nation that is no longer seeing itself as linked to historical Christianity At the same time, Baptists (a traditionally evangelical grouping) have declined from 19.8% to 17.2%. Newer evangelical movements like the Pentecostals and Charismatics have continued to grow, but are actually quite small in comparison to the rest of America. I don't see any reason why these census figures should change much by the next census.
Essentially my argument is this - America is getting increasingly secular and the churches are still emptying... and as a result of this, more and more people are accepting abortion as being a fact of life.
So what should evangelicals do?
What they should NOT do is what they're doing at the moment. Evangelicals are ripping their garments in woe and anger at the recent anniversary of Roe vs Wade and reaffirming themselves to direct political action to ban abortion in the United States. Money and time is spent in political tooing and froing, lobbying, letter writing and harsh words on radio. Some Christians decide to picket clinics and voice their opposition.
But while it is vitally important that Christians involve themselves in the running of worldly governments, trying to set up a law based entirely on Christian morals and beliefs in a society that has by and large rejected them is, to put it bluntly, incredibly stupid. While I concur with my fellow Evangelicals that abortion is a grevious sin, I cannot see any positive outcome with the direction my brethren are headed at the moment.
The reason is simple - the majority of American people support abortion and are not Evangelical Christians. If this simple fact were not true then maybe, just maybe, Evangelical political action may actually work.
In this article I've used two statistical pieces of evidence. The first is the USA Today / CNN Gallop poll that has been following societal trends towards abortion and which shows an increasing support for it amongst ordinary Americans. The second is the US Census figures which show an ever increasing secularity amongst American society and a marked decline in church membership, even amongst evangelicals. Do I really need to quote any more primary sources to convince anyone that American Evangelicals are declining in both number and influence?
It is obvious that Evangelicals are fighting the wrong battles: The pomposity of Justice Sunday; the naked hate of Westboro Baptist Church; the dirty politics of James Dobson; the sheer hypocrisy of Ralph Reed; the increasingly bizarre Pat Robertson; I have to admit that I am thoroughly embarrassed by all of these public expressions of Evangelical Christianity. The only reason why I remain an Evangelical, and not turn to atheism, is my solid belief that God himself shares my frustrations.
What should evangelicals do? For starters, they should, in the words of Bill O'Reilly, JUST SHUT UP. Words are cheap, and morally outraged Evangelicals are doing no one a favour when they start complaining about how un-Christian America is. What? America isn't Christian? Well duh!
The second thing evangelicals should do is get back to the basics - knowing and living the gospel of Christ and the Word of God. It's amazing, but ironically the Bible is the least read document in American churches. Instead of preaching from the Bible, most evangelicals preach a spiritualized self-help philosophy based more on Anthony Robbins than the Spirit-inspired word of God. Some even preach the "health and wealth" heresy that will ruin the lives of many once the next recession hits. Hey, fellow Evangelicals, the answer is simple - just teach what the Bible says, not what you want it to say. And preach Christ crucified, died and risen again.
The third thing evangelicals should do is interact with the world lovingly. This does not mean compromise or airy-fairly relativism, but it does mean letting your actions match your words. It also means shutting up (again) and listening to people.
And who knows, some of these people you deal with may end up becoming your friends. More than that - shock horror! - they may even choose to not have an abortion because of your influence! Chances are that this will work much better than bombing clinics or paying corrupt lobbyists to push a Roe-hating federal judge through congress...
From the Theosalient Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)