Sunday, January 19, 2020



Communism just beneath the surface in Sanders campaign

An undercover operative for Project Veritas has filmed a rabid Bernie Sanders field organizer who claims that "cities will burn" if President Trump is reelected this year, and that Trump supporters will need to be reeducated in literal gulags, similar to what Germany did to 'Nazified' Germans after World War II.

"Do you even think, that some of these, like, MAGA people could be "re-educated?" asks the Veritas journalist in a preview of Tuesday's exposé

"We gotta try, so like, in Nazi Germany after the fall of the Nazi party, there was a shit-ton of the populace that was fucking Nazi-fied," said field organizer Kyle Jurek.

"Germany had to spend billions of dollars re-educating their fucking people to not be nazis. Like, we're probably going to have to do the same thing here," he added. "That's kind of what all Bernie's whole fucking like "Hey, free education for everybody - because we're going to have to teach you not to be a fucking Nazi""

Jurek went on to explain "there's a reason Joseph Stalin had gulags," adding "And actually, gulags were a lot better than what the CIA has told us that they were. Like, people were actually paid a living wage in gulags, they had conjugal visits in gulags, gulags were actually meant for like re-education."

The Sanders organizer also predicts violence if Bernie doesn't get the Democratic nomination, and that "Milwaukee will burn."

SOURCE  




Impeachment: do Republicans have more fun?

Ann Coulter

Impeachments aren’t what they used to be. Today, young people are supposed to be excited that the president withheld taxpayer money from Ukraine –- a half-billion-dollar foreign aid package that ticks off most Americans under any circumstances, going to a country notable for not being our country, and for a purpose other than the wall.

Now, Bill Clinton –- that was an impeachment!

First, there was the corpus delicti of the case -- a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, earning her “presidential kneepads” by sexually servicing the president.

The telephonic evidence wasn’t about “Burisma Holdings Limited” or a Ukrainian prosecutor whose name no one can remember. It was tapes of Monica blathering on and on about servicing the president, including such fascinating items as:

-- Clinton couldn’t remember Monica’s name after their first two sexual encounters;

-- Monica’s suggestion to Clinton that she be named “assistant to the president for b--- jobs";

-- Her description of the presidential member (“think of a thumb”).

On Jan. 17, 1998, The Drudge Report broke the intern story. The following week, Clinton gave an impassioned, finger-wagging, squint-eyed address to the nation, saying:

“I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman -- Miss Lewinsky.”

Clinton spent the next seven months dragging the country through his lies, followed by the unraveling of his lies, then more lies, followed by more unraveling.

By late summer, it turned out Monica had, in fact, kept the long-rumored “blue dress” with Clinton’s semen on it. The president was ordered to produce a sample of his DNA. It was one of many presidential “firsts" under Clinton.

A few weeks after producing his DNA, Clinton addressed the nation: "Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate."

Contrary to the bilge put out by the legacy media ever since their baby boomer, draft-dodging, pot-smoking, Fleetwood Mac-listening president was caught committing numerous, serious felonies, Clinton was not impeached for having a sexual affair (as hilarious as that was).

He was impeached for his repeated perjuries and subornation of perjury in a citizen’s private civil rights suit against him.

In May 1994, Paula Jones had brought a lawsuit against Clinton under the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- once considered more sacred than any other legislation passed in the 20th century. That law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment.

Jones alleged that, when Clinton was the governor of Arkansas –- a phrase that still has a rather disreputable ring to it -- he had summoned her, a lowly state employee, to his hotel room, dropped his pants and said, “Kiss it.”

To prove her case, Jones had a right to collect evidence to show that he had made similar sexual advances toward other female underlings. This had been expressly confirmed by the Supreme Court’s May 27, 1997, unanimous ruling that her lawsuit could proceed without delay. (The court’s 9-0 ruling surprised every TV lawyer, but one.)

So Clinton lied. He lied to the country, to his Cabinet and, most important, to the court -- under oath in a deposition presided over by federal judge Susan Webber Wright. (I’d add “to his wife,” but no one thinks she was fooled.)

During his deposition on Jan. 17, 1998, for example, Clinton gave these answers to Jones’ lawyers:

Q: At any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?

A: I don’t recall.

Q: At any time have you and Monica Lewinsky ever been alone together in any room in the White House?

A: I have no specific recollection.

The president had had Monica perform oral sex on him in the White House a half-dozen times, including while he was taking calls from members of Congress. On Easter Sunday, he'd sodomized her with a cigar. He’d just spent months orchestrating a massive campaign to ensure Monica would submit a perjurious affidavit to Jones’ attorneys, such as asking Vernon Jordan to arrange a job for her at Revlon in New York City.

To say that he “had no specific recollection” of being alone with Monica is blinding, inarguable perjury.

Liberals sneer that Clinton merely “lied about sex.” If it’s OK to “lie about sex,” then we can’t have laws about sex. No laws against sexual harassment, rape, child molestation, human trafficking, prostitution. (Oh sorry -- I think I just listed the entire Democratic platform.)

Those are all “just about sex”!

That’s why Clinton heatedly insisted that his testimony was “legally accurate,” saying, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Perjury is a very serious crime.

The Supreme Court sure thought so! (This is in contrast to the entire Democratic Party: Not a single Democrat voted against Clinton in the Senate impeachment trial, despite his screamingly obvious perjuries.)

Clinton’s first State of the Union address following his Senate trial happened to be the last one of his presidency. The entire Supreme Court boycotted the event. Even the two justices he’d appointed! The court’s gigantic message to the felon was conveyed to the sergeant-at-arms in a terse, two-sentence note expressing regrets.

We can’t have a legal system if people feel free to lie under oath.

Idiots keep announcing on TV that all impeachments are “political,” which they understand to mean “partisan.” No –- that’s not what it means.

As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 65, impeachable offenses are “political” in the sense that they are attacks on the body politic -- “injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

It doesn’t get much more injurious to a “nation of laws, not men” than to have the president of the United States perjuring himself over and over and over again in a citizen’s Supreme Court-approved lawsuit against him.

You see, kids? That was an impeachment!

SOURCE 





'Anti-woke bad boy' or 'contemptuous' and privileged white male?

Laurence Fox's Question Time slanging match with an ethnicity lecturer over Meghan Markle has sent Twitter into a melt down.

The 41-year-old accused Rachel Boyle, an academic at Edge Hill University on Merseyside, of 'being racist' after she called him 'a white privileged male' for denying the Duchess of Sussex was hounded from Britain for being mixed-race.

The star of ITV drama Lewis and former husband of actress Billie Piper has divided Twitter with some hailing him as a 'hero' and 'bang on the money' with others slamming him as 'contemptuous'.

John Hooper wrote: 'I don’t know much about Laurence Fox, but he’s fast turning into a hero of mine' while Edd Lees added: 'Laurence Fox is the hero we never knew we needed.'

David Gould added: 'Thank god for people like Laurence Fox and Piers Morgan, talking common sense in an increasingly mad world.'

Others condemned Fox's views. Maggie Rankin said: 'I’m no regular watcher of #bbcqt but it’s rare I’d rather listen to the Tory representative than the non-politician/journalist.  'Laurence Fox came across as really contemptuous. If you don’t want your views scrutinised, don’t go on this programme.'

A Twitter user who goes by the name Barhamm said: 'Oh dear. A white and privileged actor sings about being white and a victim of oppression?! You couldn't make it up. Fox has.'

Fox today quoted Martin Luther King's 'I have a dream' speech following his appearance on the programme and goaded critics about loving their 'leftist tears' and 'giggling at their expense'.

He shared an excerpt of Dr King's 1963 speech about living in a nation where children 'will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character'. 

He said: 'This is the position I took last night and I live by in life. If you can improve on it, I’m all ears. Or you can keep screeching “Racist!” at me and I can carry on having a jolly good giggle at your expense. The tide is turning'.

His opponent Ms Boyle said today she's 'not a**sed' about the row and tweeted: 'Fell out with @LozzaFox (not a***d), upset a (majority white) audience (not a***d) but called the treatment of Meghan Markle what it is "racism". Thank you to @bbcquestiontime for having me'.

Laurence couldn't cope with what he was hearing and looked like he was banging his head on a desk    +12
Laurence couldn't cope with what he was hearing and looked like he was banging his head on a desk

Ms Boyle has appeared on BBC Breakfast as a newspaper reviewer and describes herself on social media as a university lecturer researching race and ethnicity.

Rachel Boyle: 'The problem we've got with this is that Meghan has agreed to be Harry's wife and then the Press have torn her to pieces. Let's be really clear about what this is – let's call it by its name, it's racism, she's a black woman and she has been torn to pieces.'

She was jeered as she called Mr Fox, a QT panellist in Liverpool last night, 'a white privileged male' when he denied her claims and said Britain is 'the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe.'

He shot back at her: ''Oh my God. I can't help what I am, I was born like this, it's an immutable characteristic: to call me a white privileged male is to be racist - you're being racist'.

Mr Fox was visibly exasperated by their exchange last night, first looking to the sky in despair and then appearing to bang his head on the desk.

He also blasted climate change hypocrisy by 'lecturing' stars and the Labour leadership contest, where he made the audience giggle when he nicknamed Jeremy Corbyn 'magic grandpa'.

And after being asked about if he had sympathy for the Sussexes he added: 'Surely Harry should have had a chat with Meghan at some point and said: 'By the way this is going to be misery and you don't have to marry me if you don't want to'.

'And then they hop out and I think, can we have the cottage back and your HRHs? I do sympathise with them but there is a little bit of having your cake and eating it, which I don't enjoy'.

Their angry exchange began when Ms Boyle said criticism of Meghan in the media had been motivated by 'racism', adding: 'She's a black woman and she has been torn to pieces.'

But Fox hit back, saying: 'it's not racism' and continued: We're the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe… it's so easy to throw the charge of racism at everybody and it's really starting to get boring'.

However, Ms Boyle angered him and much of the audience by replying: 'What worries me about your comment is you are a white privileged male who has no experience in this.'

Fox responded: 'I can't help what I am, I was born like this, it's an immutable characteristic, so to call me a white privileged male is to be racist - you're being racist'.

SOURCE 






Status anxiety and the tyranny of opinion

By John Carroll, commenting from Australia

Proclaiming your own shallow virtue from the pulpit of social media has become the new religion.

As the year of identity politics, 2019, is now at an end, we should ask what has been going on.

The return of medieval heresy trials, draconian inquisition and pseudo-religious cults preaching apocalypse demands some inter­pretation. The new wars are over opinion. Belief has been separated from fact. In parallel, status has shifted from property and achievement to attitudes. Even a summer of catastrophic bushfire often has been co-opted by doomsday politics rather than met, as it should be, by sober gravity, sympathy and reflection on the nature and history of this harsh continent.

One obvious manifestation of insecure identity is status anxiety. Throughout the modern period, people have compensated for doubts about their worth by showing off their wealth, displayed in large houses, luxury cars, designer clothes and expensive holidays; living in prestigious suburbs; and sending their children to elite schools and universities.

They have indulged in what American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen dubbed “conspicuous consumption”.

Rise of the new snobs

The new snobbery, however, is not over bad taste, crude accents, cheap belongings and the wrong schools; it is over attitudes.

Some boast on Instagram that they personally carbon offset when flying #climatechange, and attract a stream of likes. Others tweet they support gay marriage #loveislove, and are deluged in hearts of approval. Thousands swarm against a Michael Leunig cartoon. This shift in the signals of status must be, in part, a feature of affluence — the markers of economic success matter less these days — combined with the fact the noise is coming almost exclusively from the ranks of the better off. In the upper middle class, comfort may be taken for granted.

The root of identity politics is revealed in its designation: in identity and its discontents. Mind, there is nothing new in anxiety about self. Seventeenth-century French moralist Francois de La Rochefoucauld argued that self-esteem was the strongest of human motivating forces. Vanity, egoism and fear of embarrassment and failure drive most human behaviour. In the pre-modern world, this was less universally true, for more than 90 per cent of the population had little time or energy left over from the daily grind of basic survival. Concern about identity was a leisure-time luxury they could ill afford.

The key to secure identity is an inner confidence underpinned by belief and belonging. Belief is primary. German sociologist Max Weber coined the term disenchantment to describe the central threat confronting the modern West. In a secular time that no longer believed in God, or indeed in any transcendental ordering principle, the risk was that the world would lose its magic and be come a dull and prosaic absurdity. Humans were left to pursue pleasure and avoid pain, and little else.

Samuel Beckett highlighted this condition in Waiting for Godot, arguably the most important play of the 20th century. For Beckett’s two tramps, life has become so pointless that they talk of suicide but can’t be bothered carrying it out. Meaning has become the modern problem.

In fact, faith in God has been replaced, in the shadows, by an alternative potential commanding attachment: that there are deep and enduring truths that underpin the human condition; and, further, that the good life depends on gaining some understanding of them and managing to live in harmony with them. These truths are elusive, and difficult to formulate and enshrine; Shakespeare’s entire work may be read as a wrestling to uncover their complex texture.

Things were much easier in the time of church religion, with priests, teaching orders, theology and doctrine, an absolute moral calculus, and a vast background of tradition, monumental buildings, music and art — all dedicated to proclaiming the faith.

As the West progressively moved into a post-Christian era, high culture and the universities became of vital social importance. Their guiding mission was to help ordinary people better understand their lives, and in particular bear the hardships and tragedies that beset them. They did this through telling stories about life in its manifold variety — in literature, art, music and more recently film — and then interpreting them. Across the past 1½ centuries, this mission, in the main, has been progressively abandoned. As a result, loss of faith has left a vacuum and the anti-belief, if pressed, that there is nothing.

Weariness rules

The need for faith, or some secular equivalent, seems to be universal. Without it, there is the uprootedness of Beckett’s demoralised tramps, who have no mental chart to guide them through the day, the month and the year.

Human identity without firm and distinct shape is condemned to leading a haphazard existence, motivated by profane pleasure and the pursuit of power. Pleasures diminish and power is capricious. A vacancy of belief drives some to seek tranquillisers and intoxicants; others to seek militant secular faiths. Those pseudo-religions, in turn, are given to a paranoid polarising of the world into good and evil. The psychology is familiar, from earlier times, when churches, out of their own insecurity, persecuted heretics, witches or those they deemed nonconformist.

Shaky medieval religion also triggered apocalyptic sects, which we see re-emerging today in an uncanny regression to our most superstitious past.

Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg provides a case study. Her demean­our and mode of declam­ation mimics that of a fundamentalist Christian preacher ranting about the end of the world. The intense eyes, the raging warnings of apocalypse and the incantatory chant of “How dare you!” pitched against the satanic adult world are reminiscent of some cult spawned in Waco, Texas.

There was a Children’s Crusade in the early Middle Ages: something like 20,000 children, led by two of their number, set out from France to free Jerusalem from unbelievers. The crusade foundered well before its destination, in starvation and disaffection.

There is also the other recent eruption of Extinction Rebellion, a movement of self-styled soldiers of virtue parading as if cast from the Book of Revelation. From London to Melbourne, they came hooded and garbed in bright crimson robes, faces painted white, with thin red lips, a cross between a medieval dance-of-death procession and spooky Hare Krishnas. These martyrs glue themselves to buildings and seek arrest — that is, look for self-vindicating persecution by evil authority.

Whatever the truth about ­climate change, the Extinction ­Rebellion apocalypse is based on a radical inflation of long-term global warming forecasts, in themselves as unreliable as economic forecasts, if not more so. Eminent Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith quipped that economic forecasting was invented to give astrology a good name.

Identity politics obeys the catchcry: I emote virtuously, there­fore I am

End of the world is nigh

Greta is not in herself of interest. What is alarming is that she has been taken seriously by the worldwide media, listened to devoutly by broad sections of the upper middle class and its cultural elites, given a platform at the UN and celebrated as Time person of the year.

Professional orders that are otherwise sober, serious, hardworking and methodical in their practical lives are turning, in their leisure, to quasi-religious venting, dark paranoid fantasy and wide-eyed righteous indignation.

This crusading opinion is being generated from within a tiny social bubble. Sociologist Peter Murphy has calculated from Twitter statistics that a mere 2 per cent of the American adult population deal in political opinion. The rest who use Twitter gossip about celebrities and lifestyle — but that too may come with a malevolent thrust, as experienced by Meghan Markle and the barrage of hate opinion she has attracted on social media, some of which has an overlapping political cast.

In last year’s federal election, climate change was proved to be a minority worry, playing a negligible role among mainstream voters, who remained uninterested.

The take-up of social media has meant angry opinion, which used to be limited to berating this or that political figure at the pub or the golf club, may be broadcast instantly and worldwide. It provides the mouthpiece for a global cacophony of hatred, malicious gossip, derision and persecution of those who are different, and coercive opinion containing the implicit threat: agree with me or else.

Foundation stones of the modern West crack: the liberal value of freedom of individual conscience, the Enlightenment values of reasoned argument and freedom of speech, and the civilised values of moderation and courtesy.

The ease of fingertip communication has aggravated the tendency for anyone, when hot under the collar, to speak impulsively and thoughtlessly, and to judge without mounting a clearly reasoned case. As people spend more of their leisure time on smartphones and less reading books, they develop habits in themselves ill-suited to measured reflection.

Addiction to social media brings with it a feverish restlessness of concentration and, it seems, a dependency on approval.

This is a trait that has taken centre stage, with posts on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter receiving hearts and thumbs-up to indicate likes, even though the likes often come from strangers giving the post a few passing seconds of their time.

That recognition for a post comes in the form of a love heart is suggestive of an underlying depressive strain in the culture.

No depth or sense of self

At the pathological extreme, this kind of brittle self-esteem links with an inability to handle criticism, as with the 20-year old apprentice plumber whose work is corrected by his boss, sending him into a two-day sulk. Or univer­sities offering counselling for students whose sensitivities may have been damaged by opinions they disagree with. Or The Australian’s cartoonist Bill Leak being investigated by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Identity politics obeys the catchcry: I emote virtuously, there­fore I am. The specific content is often unimportant, as illustrated by a low inclination to mar­shal arguments to back up opinion.

The in-vogue markers of identity today — sexual orientation, race, hostility to Western civilisation, and the environment — are more free-floating excuses for enthusiasm than real personal traits, for few of the crusaders are cross-gender, native peoples, Gandhi-like ascetics or Greenpeace sailors.

The enthusiasm is then expressed as high-voltage opinion on social media, during political demonstrations and in graffiti.

The logic of this type of depressive narcissism finds its main reward in the tick of approval. The thumbs-up or love heart is inflated in the imagination as recognition for the lonely self as a whole, the sum total of its identity, which is more than the specifics of its opinions. At the same time, self-esteem has become so fragile, the ego so lacking in confidence, that the mere whisper of a dissident view pricks the emoting bubble.

Even major institutions have taken to emoting virtuously. In part this has been to cover up the fact they have excluded while they have embraced. The mission statements of corporations, universities and sporting bodies proudly boast of inclusiveness, tolerance and diversity. But the more they do so, the more they have practised discrimination, intolerance and politically correct conformism.

Sigmund Freud termed this pathological syndrome negation, as in the aggressive smile — “to smile and smile and be a villain”. Negation was illustrated politically by the former East Germany, one of the nastiest dictatorships of the modern era, which called itself the German Democratic Republic.

It is not surprising, then, that belief has become separated from act. Others are judged by what they believe, not by what they do. Footballer Israel Folau and tennis great Margaret Court have been chosen as the local scapegoats.

Last year Rugby Australia, it seems, preferred to signal its own virtue than concern itself with the wellbeing of its sport, in on-field performance or its own balance sheet. Mimicking medieval relig­ious fanaticism, it persecuted its best player for his unmodish beliefs, likely picking on him because he was its best player — the more brilliant his rugby, the more evil his character.

Many professional footballers, if grilled on their attitudes, would not pass the heresy test. What separated Folau from the others is, first, rugby super-stardom; and, second, the unusual fact today that he strongly believes in something. His faith confronts and irritates. For the minority who are themselves fanatical believers, such as devotees of Extinction Rebellion and Greta, Folau is a true heretic worshipping the wrong god.

Likewise with Court. The fact she was the nation’s best female tennis player, and arguably the world’s best tennis player, makes her a beacon of sporting excellence. She has to be burnt at the stake because she lends authority to heresy, even though that heresy is the traditional view of marriage held by most of the Western world until very recently, and still held by a sizeable minority of Australians.

The Folau and Court cases tell us something more. The moral views at issue are not particularly shocking, for the public heat has gone out of both domains. Folau’s attitude to homosexuals is, to most minds, ludicrous, even laughable, as is his belief in Hell; and the same-sex marriage controversy is over, and decided, so who should care what Court thinks?

But crusading religion needs its devils, even if they are rather quaint and feeble devils. The sniff of evil provides blood energy.

Virtual shallowness

Communal belonging traditionally has proved the most successful way to compensate for the insecure identity that derives from the lack of much to believe in.

What sociologists call anomie results when community ties break down — anomie is the sense the world lacks cohesive norms and values. Strong community binds people together with shared purposes and common beliefs, providing a collective glue that helps its members feel at home in their world, with confidence about what they should do and how they should live their lives.

Today, the nuclear family provides the most common and successful example, with a lesser, supporting role played by schools, clubs and other associations.

The virtual community enabled by social media is not an entirely satisfactory substitute. It is, in general, less stable and enduring than the family, less tightly bound, and it mobilises a fickle, less cohesive legitimacy. More, it encourages aggregates of shared opinion rather than shared doing or face-to-face gathering together.

The disenchantment that follows from lack of belief in any fundamental truths anchoring the human condition has led to some malign compensations. It has unhinged the all-too-human search for security of individual identity.

Hell has gone, but not the belief in satanic forces and their incarnations. Christ the saviour has gone but not the belief in redemptive politics. The more atheist ranks have grown, the more we have seen, with religion, a Freudian return of the repressed. The best of secular values — freedom of conscience and opinion, underwritten by a liberal-democratic order — are suffering under an onslaught from the worst excesses of religion: the tyranny of right­eous opinion, fanatical preach­­ing and the persecution of heresy.

SOURCE  

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

************************************



Friday, January 17, 2020


Scruton



The recent death of Roger Scruton has brought forth a number of reviews of his ideas and praise for his determined defence of them.

As the article below points out, his ideas coincide well with Trump's campaigns.  Patriotism is once more respectable and Scruton could well be described as the prophet of patriotism.  He is certainly a British patriot and I think he defends that well.

He is spot-on here:

"The Left is united by hatred, but we are united by love: love of our country, love of institutions, love of the law, love of family, and so on... what makes us conservatives is the desire to protect those things, and we're up against people who want to destroy them."

But I think he is dead wrong here:

"Left-wing people find it very hard to get on with right-wing people because they believe that they are evil. Whereas I have no problem getting on with left-wing people because I simply believe that they are mistaken."

That may show what a nice guy Scruton was but it reverses reality.  Leftist beliefs are not mistaken.  They are beliefs tenaciously clung on to because of their destructive potential.  Leftists really are evil and we have a big struggle to defend ourselves and our way of life from their dictatorial impulses

I also think that there is much in Scruton's view of conservatism that is rather idiosyncratic.  To me he is more a reactionary, not a conservative. He summarizes his view here.  There is much that he says about conservative psychology which is correct and insightful (such as: "British conservatism has always been suspicious of ideas" and "conservatism is less a philosophy than a temperament") but he claims to say what conservatism is without once mentioning the major policy preference which springs from that psychology -- the desire for individual liberty.  

And is there ANY American -- conservative or not -- who would agree that "the future is the past"?  That is  Scruton's summary of  a core conservative outlook.  By that criterion there are no (or very few) conservatives in America, I would think.  I prefer an infinitely more influential conservative's view of what is important in conservatism,   Ronald Reagan's :  "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism....  The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom"

There is a good article here by Janet Albrechtsen which contrasts Scruton's thought with Leftist thought.  Scroll down to the heading "Hate is all that the Left have"

I have written more extensively on Scruton here



Sir Roger Scruton Is Dead, but His Ideas Live On

“Conservatism,” wrote Sir Roger Scruton, “is not a matter of defending global capitalism at all costs, or securing the privileges of the few against the many… Its underlying motive is not greed or the lust for power but simply attachment to a way of life.”

The great English philosopher, taken by cancer at the age of 75, was certainly no Chamber of Commerce conservative. For him, conservatism was not defined by the clash of competing economic systems, but by far simpler and more important matters; the preservation of truth, beauty, tradition, heritage, place, and identity.

His definition of patriotism, too, involved concepts you’re unlikely to hear at a Koch-funded lecture:

“When we wish to summon the ‘we’ of identity we refer to our country. We refer simply to this spot of earth, which belongs to us because we belong to it, have loved it, lived in it, defended it and established peace and prosperity within its borders.”

Scruton’s ideas, marginalized for many decades, have bubbled back to the top of the mainstream conservative movement. Under the leadership of nationalist and populist firebrands like President Donald Trump, Matteo Salvini of Italy, Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, and Viktor Orban of Hungary (which recently awarded Scruton the Order of Merit), all manner of Scrutonite ideas have returned to the frontline of politics.

Take the concept of Oikophobes and Oikophiles, which Scruton often talked about. Oikophobia — from the Greek word “Oikos”, meaning “home” — refers to an aversion to one’s home; to its people, its traditions, and its culture.

As Scruton described it in a 2006 speech in Brussels, the Oikophobe opposes and ultimately seeks to supplant his own nation with rootless, bureaucratic political entities:

The oikophobe repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed from on high by the EU or the UN, and defining his political vision in terms of cosmopolitan values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community.

Is there any doubt that the division between Oikophobes and Oikophiles — or, one might say, globalists and nationalists —  is now the primary political divide in the west? Has it not sidelined the old, 20th-century battle between capitalism and socialism, which defined the left-right divide in that era? To be sure, the Kochs and the Chamber of Commerce and the D.C. think tanks are still deeply entrenched in the conservative establishment, but the momentum of the movement is no longer behind them.

This is not to say that Scruton was in any way soft on socialism. Far from it: in the 1980s, he played a leading role in the underground academic networks behind the Iron Curtain that helped bring about the collapse of Soviet communism. Socialism and communism, after all, are Oikophobe ideologies — throughout the 20th century they laid waste to national loyalties, to traditional architecture, to Christianity and other religions. Their fanatical adherents sought to supplant the authority of the masses with the authority of politburos whose loyalty lay not with their nation or people, but with a transnational ideology.

What set Scruton apart from mass-produced “conservative intellectuals” of the think-tank circuit, however, was his recognition that western neoliberalism was perfectly capable of producing its own kind of Oikophobia.

Even as eastern and Central European nationalism flowered amid the ruins of communism, western politicians — including so-called “conservatives” — pushed for mass immigration and deeper ties to artificial constructs like the E.U., which Scruton firmly opposed. Domestically, opponents of the agenda were demonized as cranks, conspiracy theorists, or racists. (Scruton himself recently fell prey to this well-oiled witchhunt machine). Overseas, western powers sought to import their rationalist, liberal values into cultures to which they were alien, with predictably disastrous results.

The rise of leaders like Trump, Bolsonaro, and Salvini has undermined that post-Soviet order, but Scruton wasn’t uncritical of populism either. He took issue with its American variant’s opposition to free trade, and thought Trump, “a creation of social media,” lacked intellect.

Despite this, Scruton recognized the conservative instinct behind two central ideas of the Trump movement, opposition to mass immigration and a revival of national identity.

As he wrote in 2018:

National identity is the origin of the trust on which political order depends. Such trust does not exist in Libya or Syria. But it exists in America, and the country has no more precious asset than the mutual loyalty that enables the words “we, the people” to resonate with every American, regardless of whether it is a liberal or a conservative who utters them.

Those first words of the United States Constitution do not refer to all people everywhere. They refer to the people who reside here, in this place and under this rule of law, and who are the guardians and beneficiaries of a shared political inheritance. Grasping that point is the first principle of conservatism.

Our political inheritance is not the property of humanity in general but of our country in particular. Unlike liberalism, with its philosophy of abstract human rights, conservatism is based not in a universal doctrine but in a particular tradition, and this point at least the president has grasped.

Happily, Scruton lived to see the twilight years of globalism, the Oikophobe ideology that despises national identity. In the early 2010s, if you said you were a “nationalist”, or that place, culture, and people matter, you would receive funny looks at best or be denounced as a racist at worst. Some people still think that way. And yet, everywhere you look, nationalists are now openly campaigning and winning elections.

Roger Scruton may be dead, but his ideas, grounded in a deep understanding of how people actually are, not how 20th-century ideologies wished them to be, have a destiny that stretches far into the future.

SOURCE  





Church of England has 'swallowed political correctness wholesale', Queen's former chaplain says, as he converts to Catholicism

Dr Gavin Ashenden, who served the Queen from 2008 to 2017, said that the Church is increasingly bowing to the “non-negotiable demands of secular culture” and has remained “astonishingly silent” when it comes to defending Christian values.

Dr Ashenden stepped down from his role in the Church after objecting to the Quran being read during an Anglican service.

He has now chosen to convert to Catholicism because he believes it has the “courage, integrity and conviction to hold the Christian ground”.

“Freedom of speech is slowly being eroded; those who refuse to be ‘politically correct’ risk accusations of thought crime and Christians are being unfairly persecuted,” he wrote in the Mail on Sunday. “And where is the Church of England in this crucial culture war? Is it on the front line? Not that I can see. If anything, it has switched sides. “This isn’t just a shame, it’s a calamity.

“Too often, called upon to defend Christian values, it has remained astonishingly silent. Nowhere is this starker today than in the highly-charged debate over transgender rights, particularly regarding children and teenagers.”

Dr Ashenden criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby for endorsing guidelines to primary schools in November 2017 that encouraged the use of gender neutral uniforms, which said that children "should be at liberty to explore the possibilities of who they might be without judgement or derision".

“Rather than resist such political correctness, and offer a Christian critique, the Church of England has swallowed it wholesale,” he said.

“In each generation, Christianity has a choice: convert its surroundings or be converted by it. Regrettably, I have come to believe that the Church of England has given up on the essentials of the faith at points where it really matters,” he added.

SOURCE 






We have to talk about these Pakistani gangs

The Manchester abuse scandal shows what a horrendous impact political correctness can have.

This week, we have seen the true toll of political correctness. PC isn’t just irritating or stupid. It isn’t just woke students banning sombreros or schools getting iffy about ‘Baa Baa Black Sheep’. PC destroys lives.

A report into police and council failings in Manchester has found that gangs of predominantly Pakistani men were free to abuse up to 57 girls after chief cops and local officials turned a blind eye to this foul, cruel behaviour. Why did they turn away? Partly out of fear of stoking racial tensions. Partly because they were worried that drawing attention to the grooming and exploitation of mostly white working-class girls by Asian men might ‘incite racial hatred’ and damage multicultural relations.

Let’s put it plainly: they sacrificed girls to political correctness; they thought that preserving the ideology of multiculturalism was more important than protecting girls from harm.

The independent review into grooming and abuse in Manchester in the mid-2000s, published yesterday, makes for grim reading. It says there were up to 57 victims, mostly white girls aged between 12 and 16, and 97 potential perpetrators, mostly men of ‘Asian heritage’. The review makes clear, from some of the evidence it acquired, that some of the abuse networks were made up of ‘predominantly Pakistani men’. That is, similar to Rotherham, Telford and other parts of the UK, this was a case involving what is sometimes referred to as a Muslim grooming gang.

The girls were groomed, sexually abused, plied with drugs and raped. They suffered, in the review’s words, ‘the most profound abuse and exploitation’. But little was done to help them. Their abusers were not brought to justice. And this catastrophic failing was in part fuelled by what the review refers to as Greater Manchester Police’s concerns about ‘sensitive community issues’. As one news report summarises it, the police were ‘keen not to be seen targeting [a] minority group’. As a result of this PC cowardice, of this mad multicultural sensitivity, the abuse continued.

The review focuses on the tragic case of Victoria Agoglia, a 15-year-old girl in the care of Manchester social services who died from a heroin overdose in 2003. Social services were aware that Victoria was being exploited. She was being injected with heroin by the gangs who used and abused her. She reported being raped. Scandalously, little was done to assist her. Following her death, the coroner said she was known ‘to provide sexual favours’ – a repulsive way of describing the sexual abuse of an underage girl by older men. As the independent review says, such a view of Victoria and her tragic fate ‘significantly underplays the coercion and control’ and ‘harrowing experience’ she was subjected to.

Think about this: we live in a time in which a middle-class woman’s complaint about overhearing a sexist joke or having a hand briefly placed on her knee becomes a huge scandal and can even dominate news coverage, and yet a vulnerable working-class girl can experience horrendous genuine abuse and a coroner, influenced by the view of social services, will refer to it as ‘sexual favours’.

Greater Manchester Police launched Operation Augusta following Victoria’s death. They identified 57 victims and 97 potential perpetrators. Yet hardly any of these people were brought to justice and their ‘activities [were not] disrupted’, as the review says. That is, they carried on abusing. Operation Augusta was wrapped up early and resources were devoted to other, less ‘sensitive’ crimes. As the review says, ‘The authorities knew that many were being subjected to the most profound abuse and exploitation but did not protect them from the perpetrators’.

This is a scandal of epic proportions. The very organisations that are charged with looking after young people who are at risk of abuse failed to do their duty. And they failed to do their duty because they did not want to ruffle community feathers; because they believed, as so much of the establishment does, that ordinary Britons are a vile racist throng and if we hear about an Asian grooming gang we will go crazy. They let their ideology – their commitment to political correctness and to multicultural censorship – distract them from the task of protecting girls from ‘the most profound abuse and exploitation’.

The silence around grooming gangs, in which largely Muslim men abuse largely white working-class girls, has gone on long enough. We need a serious debate about this.

And yet even discussing it is difficult. People are branded racist if they bring it up. You’re an Islamophobe if you talk about the background of most of these men. Sarah Champion was thrown out of the shadow cabinet for daring to write about gangs of Pakistani men abusing girls in her constituency of Rotherham. Corbynistas and Muslim groups accused her of racism.

This unwillingness to talk about, never mind take seriously, the abuse of hundreds of white working-class girls across the country can also be seen in the response to the Manchester scandal. As some people are pointing out, many of today’s newspapers have not led with this story in the way we should expect them to, given it is a huge social and political scandal. What’s more, feminists, so-called progressives and the allegedly pro-working-class left are silent about the whole thing.

There are no hashtags. There is no #MeToo solidarity for these abused girls. There are no expressions of concern from the left. Just shameful, cowardly silence. ‘Make it go away’, is the attitude of these people. Indeed, this week we have had the truly grotesque spectacle of lefties expressing more concern for a duchess, Meghan Markle, than for 57 working-class girls who suffered ‘profound abuse’. They’ve shed more tears over a few rude headlines about the painfully privileged Duchess of Sussex than they have over the revelation that working-class girls were degraded in the most awful way because the authorities couldn’t be bothered to help them.

All day yesterday the chattering classes were droning on about ‘white privilege’ while ignoring the reports about white, mostly poor girls in Manchester being abused. The cognitive dissonance is complete: ‘All white people have privilege’, they cry, as a review reveals the abuse and rape of white girls by mostly Pakistani gangs.

We have to talk about this. We have to talk about how officialdom’s shameful reluctance to investigate these kinds of cases allowed the abuse to continue. We have to talk about how the cultural elite’s silence on these crimes further denigrates the victims, treating them as if they are unworthy of public sympathy. We have to talk about how the new elite’s denigration of white working-class communities as backward and stupid and trashy could well inflame some people’s view of these communities as unimportant, as worthy of abuse. And we have to talk about how the ideology of multiculturalism, the PC unwillingness to look community tensions and divisions in the face, is harming the country.

If we don’t talk about this, far-right elements will continue to make mileage from this issue, girls will continue being abused, and society’s divisions will never be tackled. Only honesty and firmness can stop these things from happening again.

SOURCE 





Wilson Gavin: Online pile-on mob is medieval in its malice

Go now to Twitter — yes, I know, why would anyone? — and you will find messages like that popping up pretty much everywhere after prominent Aust­ralians hurried to delete their mean tweets about Wilson Gavin, who killed himself on Monday.

Gavin, who was gay and ­conservative and just 21, threw himself in front of a train. He is lost now — to his family, and his wide group of friends.

The train driver will never recover­. Also the passengers. And those who watched in horror.

“Don’t care. He started it.” That’s just one of the tweets that appeared online after his death was announced. Can you believe that we live in this world? Because we do. And pity young people. They always have, and likely always will.

Some background: Gavin was the president of the University of Queensland Liberal National Club. He was part of the group that turned up to shout at drag queens reading to children at a Brisbane City Council library event on ­Sunday.

The protest was filmed, and the video got posted on Twitter, and Gavin was seen shouting: “Drag queens are not for kids.”

He soon found himself subjected to what’s known as a pile-on: a mass social media attack. He’s fat! He’s ugly! He’s a miserable beast. A vile homophobe!

But Gavin was himself gay. “I’m not a homophobe. I love gay men,” he said in an interview on Sky during the same-sex ­marriage debate.

But he was a conservative, so people are now saying: “Ah, yes, but he was filled with self-loathing. He hadn’t come to terms with his sexuality. He was living a life of misery.”

It’s a sad and ugly spectacle, but of course we’ve been here before.

Charlotte Dawson was a Sydney model, gorgeous inside and out. Loud and outrageous. She was bullied online, and she blamed trolls for driving her towards ­suicide, before killing herself in her luxury apartment in 2014.

There was also a girl called Dolly, star of the Akubra ads, who was bullied to death in 2018.

Some of those who piled on Gavin — many of whom were middle-aged women with promin­ent media careers — are now mourning his death.

Then you have people saying: but you contributed. You piled on. Have you no shame?

It’s such a complicated story. Gavin is not a sweet little girl in an Akubra being bullied at school. He went to that library. He ­con­fronted the drag queens, said they were “not for kids”. His Facebook page was filled with hateful posts.

Much of the criticism of him was mild. Liberal National Party MP Trevor Evans called the UQ kids “ratbags”. Party leader Deb Frecklington just distanced herself.

But some was vile. Pile-ons ­almost always are intensely ­personal. They go for individuals. It’s not about your argument. It’s about how disgusting you are. How ugly. How slovenly, how ­sluttish. How you should really kill yourself. And yes, people do ­actually say that.

Roman Quaedvlieg, the former Australian Border Force chief, describ­ed it this way: “Shout out to those Twitterati opening the app with gloves on, mouthguard in.”

Because that’s what it’s like: being pummelled. Or else you’re the one throwing the virtual punches, from behind the safety of your screen.

But it’s not just you. It’s millions of people all saying the same thing: gross pig, go and die! Mobs form online, just as they used to do in town squares, and they are just as unpredictable as they ever were. They can swerve in ways you can’t predict.

Pile-ons also aren’t concerned with political argument or nuance. It’s personal abuse. It’s broken. It’s unedited, unfiltered, it’s garbage. It’s doing untold harm to children, and young people, but also to anyone­ in the firing line.

Everyone claims to be in the group copping it most:

Conservatives get the most hate!

No, it’s liberals!

No, it’s those who work for Murdoch!

No, it’s those who work for the ABC!

Public shaming is the subject of the book You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, by British journalist Jon Ronson; and an episode of Black Mirror, Hated in the Nation. It was the subject of Monica Lewinsky’s most recent tour. It’s not new: in the olden days, they’d cast you out beyond the city walls, in sackcloth and ashes, or they’d make you carry a billboard, or throw fruit at you, or sew letters on your clothes.

Now you get the pile-on, and it may make you want to kill yourself. But even that won’t stop them. “Absolutely no sympathy!” said one man after Gavin’s death.

No sympathy for a 21-year-old man who threw himself in front of a train? Nope. Because there’s a Twitter war to fight.

Question is: who’s winning?

SOURCE

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

************************************


Thursday, January 16, 2020



Democratic debate so white? So what?

by Jeff Jacoby

NEXT WEEK, Americans will pause to honor the civil rights giant whose famous dream was of a society in which no one would be judged by the color of their skin. This week, however, some Americans who claim to care deeply about civil rights are judging the Democratic candidates who will debate Tuesday night by the color of their skin.

Six candidates have qualified for the Des Moines event: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, and Elizabeth Warren. That sextet comprises Democrats who are male and female, straight and gay, old and young, superrrich and middle class, career politicians and political newcomers, ardent East Coast socialists and pragmatic Midwest liberals.

For a bunch of Democrats, that's pretty diverse.

Unless, that is, your idea of diversity is the kind that's only skin-deep.

Under an ominous headline — "Only white candidates have qualified for the Democrats' January debate" — the Washington Post reports that "the specter of an all-white debate" is prompting concern among party activists and "threatens to undercut the party's rhetoric of inclusivity." Indeed, the story notes, "the whiteness of the debate stage — and the top candidates — has been an issue for weeks."

An issue for whom? For social justice warriors and the political journalists they court? Maybe. For most Democratic voters? There's no reason to think so.

It's true that none of the six candidates in this week's debate are black or Asian. That isn't because minority candidates have been excluded from the Democratic debate process. It's because none of the candidates of color still in the race met the threshold for participating in the debate (contributions from 225,000 donors and 5 percent support in at least four polls). Neither did several white candidates.

The shrinking debate stage doesn't reflect a failure of "inclusivity" on the part of the Democratic Party, whose voters, officeholders, and priorities make it the most racially inclusive party in American history. Reasonable minds can dispute whether the party's criteria for joining the debates are sound, but even to hint that those criteria were adopted to keep nonwhite candidates from the spotlight is absurd. Party leaders would be thrilled if Deval Patrick, Andrew Yang, and Tulsi Gabbard had made the cutoff. (Another nonwhite candidate, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, ended his campaign Monday.)

Unlike party leaders, however, rank-and-file Democrats haven't shown much interest in the nonwhite candidates. Rank-and-file black Democrats haven't shown much interest in the nonwhite candidates. It is frequently said that black voters yearn for candidates who "look like" them, but there is no evidence of it in the Democratic presidential race. Quite the opposite.

A new Washington Post-Ipsos poll of black Americans demonstrates that African-American voters yearn above all for a nominee who can defeat President Trump. A solid majority, 57 percent, say that beating Trump is their most important consideration, far above the 33 percent whose top priority is a nominee with positions close to their own. When asked which candidate they think can win, a whopping 53 percent choose Biden. Sanders runs a distant second, with 18 percent seeing him as likeliest to defeat the incumbent.

Black voters are now the backbone of the Democratic Party. They know what most sensible voters know: The "rhetoric of inclusivity" is well and good, but the point of parties is to win elections. By a robust margin, older black voters think Biden can win, while younger black voters are counting on Sanders. That's why Biden and Sanders top the Democratic field. They are the candidates black voters support.

Obviously black voters aren't averse to supporting a viable black candidate. Their enthusiasm for Barack Obama was off the charts. But they aren't about to back a candidate just because his or her skin isn't white — nor reject a candidate just because it is.

Like nearly all candidates who run for president, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Julian Castro didn't make the cut. Their color had little to do with their lack of success: Most white candidates fail too.

In fact, the Post-Ipsos poll found, most black Americans don't care whether the Democratic vice presidential nominee is black.

If a white candidate wins the nomination, respondents were asked, "how important, if at all, would it be to you personally that the nominee choose a vice-presidential running mate who is black?" An overwhelming 72 percent said it was either "not so" important or "not at all" important.

Many candidates run for president. Nearly all of them fail. For black Democrats focused on November, the goal isn't to elect a president who isn't white, it's to elect a president who isn't Trump. The candidates they favor may not look like them, but they'll be front and center in the debate.

SOURCE 





Why things are about to get a lot worse for Jussie Smollett

If Jussie Smollett had last year pleaded guilty to some minor charge, done 90 days of community service and paid a substantial fine to reimburse the $130,000 worth of overtime costs rolled up by Chicago police detectives investigating his ludicrous assault claims, he might today be in full rebound mode. Picture it: The tearful, dramatic mea culpa with Robin Roberts. A bold admission — “This is on me” — followed by a deflection of blame to drugs or alcohol or the dark demons of hate we all know are lurking out there, waiting for third-tier television stars to emerge from sandwich shops. A charity concert. A blessing from Al Sharpton. Some lighthearted banter with Stephen Colbert. Then, gradual forgiveness and maybe another TV deal.

What Smollett did instead looks increasingly stupid. He admitted nothing and even doubled down on his fantasy tale of a late-night attack by men supposedly roaming the streets with a noose and a bottle of bleach. He was handed the opportunity by the office of State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, which dropped charges without demanding a guilty plea because he had supposedly already been punished enough, by secretly serving a few hours’ community service and forfeiting a bond of which he paid a mere $10,000. But if he was the victim of a crime, why should he forfeit one dollar or agree to one hour of community service? Worse: The real criminals are still out there!

Led by the then-mayor and the then-CPD superintendent, outrage about Smollett’s lies caused the appointment of a special prosecutor, Dan Webb. So the story lives on. Smollett has not been nailed, and Chicago wants him nailed. He will get nailed. The postman always rings twice.

Webb has won the right to comb through Smollett’s e-mails, the Chicago Tribune reported last week. Smollett is not exactly a meticulous master criminal. The day the story broke, Jan. 29, he was already telling different versions of his tall tale to the press and the police (who, if I know anything about police, therefore grokked that he was lying on the very first day).

A Chicago judge approved the special prosecutor’s request for search warrants to obtain from both Smollett and his manager “not just e-mails but also drafted and deleted messages; any files in their Google Drive cloud storage services; any Google Voice texts, calls and contacts; search and Web browsing history; and location data.” Ouch. There is no chance that all of this information will back up Smollett’s made-for-TV claims about men roaming around looking for gay television actors to beat up while chanting MAGA slogans.

The search warrant was granted way back on Dec. 6, and since the judge ordered Google and its “representatives, agents and employees” not to disclose his order to turn over the records because it might “jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation,” Smollett presumably had no idea his records were even being seized until the Tribune report ran on Jan. 8. So lots of things Smollett said privately before and after the most notorious fake attack by nonexistent evildoers since “The War of the Worlds” radio show are about to become public. Smollett’s career appears to be on pause. His income must be minimal after Fox fired him from “Empire.” His legal bills are piling up. Oh, and Dave Chappelle openly mocked him and rechristened him “Juicy Smollée.” Will the humiliation never end?

Smollett is not the only one on the hook. Foxx, Smollett’s apparent ally who let him skate, seems to be feeling the heat and has retained outside legal counsel. Foxx hired a lawyer to represent her personal interests and also brought in a former chief judge to respond to Webb’s inquiries about the state’s attorney’s office. This latter problem is costing taxpayers a significant amount: The lawyer is being paid (at a rate of $250 to $375 an hour) with public funds. Foxx is running for re-election but faces three Democratic opponents in a March primary. Seems like it won’t be long before Special Prosecutor Webb uncovers what really happened with the case. The good news for Smollett, who in November 2018 posed on Instagram in a shirt emblazoned with the word “TRUTH” in gigantic letters, is that he will at last be freed from his lies. After being forced to confess, he can get to work on rebuilding. Let the fake-apology tour begin!

SOURCE 





Omar Blasts Iran Sanctions, Defends BDS

This radical leftist appears to view the U.S. (and Israel) as the villain and Iran as the victim.

Blasting President Donald Trump for raising new sanctions on Iran over its missile attack against U.S. military personnel in Iraq, Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN) ridiculously asserted, “This makes no sense. Sanctions are economic warfare. They have already caused medical shortages and countless deaths in Iran. You cannot claim to want deescalation and then announce new sanctions with no clear goal. This in not a measured response!”

Well, the president’s goal is to defend Americans and to stop Iran from terrorizing its neighbors in the region. Trump merely responded with more sanctions when he would have been fully justified to respond to Iran’s provocative missile barrage with more deadly force. That seems the epitome of a measured response.

However, Omar, claiming to be suffering a PTSD moment, failed to see the irony in her own defense of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement — a movement that calls for sanctions against Israel simply because it is a Jewish state. “The BDS movement is a movement that is driven by the people,” she lamely pontificated. “The sanctions on Iran are sanctions that are being placed to create maximum pressure by a government. That’s very different.” It is very different — sanctioning the terrorist-sponsoring regime of Iran is entirely justified.

Omar’s response brought a quick rebuke from Congressional Leadership Fund Rapid Response Director Matthew Foldi, who observed: “By ‘very different,’ [Omar] is referring to the fact that BDS is a bunch of racist anti-Semites whereas government sanctions have nothing to do with bigotry.”

Omar seems to view America and American values as the problem and an enemy to be condemned an attacked, not her homeland that should be loved and defended. It’s as if Omar is living in a fantasy world where the U.S. is the villain and Iran is the innocent victim.

And with anti-Americans like Omar and “The Squad” leading the way, is it any wonder so many young Americans don’t find much to love about our country?

SOURCE  




Why Two-Parent Homes Are Still Better

No, the benefits of in-tact families are not "a myth," as argued by some on the Left

A family built around two parents has many advantages. Two-parent families are statistically less likely to be poor. They are also less likely to suffer addictions or engage in criminal behavior. Children who grow up in homes where both mom and dad live under one roof have a greater chance to live successful, well-adjusted lives and create stable familial relationships for themselves.

This is not to say that children who grow up in one-parent homes are doomed to miserable lives, but it’s hard to deny that the opportunity for a better life takes a lot more work. One-parent households are predominantly lower income, less educated, and more susceptible to crime and drug problems.

Sociologists, economists, and politicians have struggled for years to find ways to alleviate the inequities dealt to one-parent households. Potential solutions abound, but those suggested by Dr. Christina Cross, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University, ignore the core issue and risk making matters worse.

In a shockingly obtuse New York Times op-ed last month, Cross claimed that for black Americans the problem is not a lack of two parents under one roof, but, rather, it’s a lack of access to resources compared to white one-parent families. In other words, more taxpayer money will fix it.

Cross points out that black one-parent households have a tougher time than white one-parent households when it comes to getting and maintaining jobs, obtaining a good education, owning property, and so forth. She then makes the cognitive leap that access to resources alone is the problem for one-parent black families because one-parent white families perform statistically better in these areas. The power of a two-parent household among blacks is “a myth” according to Cross. Rather than stepping back and looking at the larger issues that face all one-parent families, Cross chooses to make a racial divide and drive home the tired leftist narrative about a racist system that has it in for black families.

Perhaps one-parent white families do perform statistically better than one-parent black families across all of Cross’s data points, but what difference does that make? White or black, they are still more likely to be poor, less educated, and more susceptible to a tougher life.

Ian Rowe, senior visiting fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, takes Cross to task for her misguided analysis. Rowe points to data from the National Center for Education Statistics that shows the proportion of black children living in poverty decreases from 45% for mother-only households and 36% for father-only households to 12% for two-parent households.

Rowe also questions how Cross narrowly cites evidence to play down the importance of two-parent households for blacks while ignoring the broader issue of family structure for children of all races. Why does the problem have to be confined to one race? Non-marital births among white women under 24 numbered 238,000 in 2018, far higher than any other racial cohort.

Cross is right to be concerned about the issue of single-parent families, but by choosing to make a racial argument, she makes it that much more difficult to implement the real solution: A more stable family structure benefitting all children, no matter their skin color.

SOURCE 

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

************************************


Wednesday, January 15, 2020



Democrat Debate Stage Will Be All White

Blame the voters. While no votes have yet been cast in the Democrat primary, that’s essentially the message from DNC Chairman Tom Perez when asked why no Democrats “of color” will be on stage at Tuesday’s presidential debate in Des Moines. Who made the cut? Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Tom Steyer, and Elizabeth “Not a Cherokee” Warren. They’re so white that, put together, they don’t even make half a Native American.

“If you want to make sure that a candidate of color makes the debate stage, when a pollster calls you, make sure you make that preference felt,” Perez said. “Because that is how you move the polling needle and, again, the voters are the ones who are making these decisions.”

He’s got half a point. While the polls clearly don’t reflect a swell of support for candidates like Andrew Yang — or former candidates like Cory Booker (who dropped out this morning) and Kamala Harris — those candidates might enjoy more support if they weren’t terrible. Now, you might be saying, “But the leading candidates are terrible, too.” And you’d be right. Nonetheless, they’re the nationally recognized terrible candidates who have a respectable shot at defeating “President Hitler,” known to normal people as Donald Trump. Biden continues to enjoy the most support among blacks.

The bigger story is how Democrats have so blatantly taken black voters for granted. Trump enjoys more support from minorities than virtually any other Republican in the last 50 years, which is a sign that more minorities see what Democrats are doing … and what Trump has done for them. That isn’t to say the Democrat won’t still win roughly 90% of the black vote, but there are cracks in the armor.

SOURCE 






Resolution 2020: Femininity, Not Feminism

Leftist feminists have thoroughly distorted what it really means to be a woman. 

In my previous article, I delved into the sad reality that is the dwindling masculinity among American men. Things just wouldn’t be fair if I didn’t offer the same food for thought to women today.

Some ladies on the Left subscribe to sexiness and seduction for self-confidence. Today, it means nothing that a woman is intelligent, God-fearing, obedient, wise, and lady-like. Instead, she must be overbearing, controlling, and powerful, filled with anger and masculine energy, but also hyper-sexualized, anti-man, and pro-abortion. Most importantly, she must forever be a victim. The world is her oyster, and she exists only to be served.

A woman today is pressured to check all of the aforementioned boxes to be seen as worthy among her peers, or else she is ostracized and excommunicated, deemed a relic of an era of “misogyny.” To leftist ladies, a woman who loves her husband, prioritizes home and family, and practices true femininity is “oppressed.” This couldn’t be further from the truth.

When I first laid eyes on the woman who is now my wife, my initial attraction was not her stunning beauty, but her modest presentation that was so different from the other girls in room.

Twenty-five years later, I remember exactly what she had on. It was a green plaid skirt that was just over the knee and a white long-sleeved blouse. Her modesty prompted me to believe that she was different. She was not projecting sexiness like most women today. Instead, she was projecting bigger ideas, confidence, self-respect, and inner beauty.

Most women today project sexiness that is dependent upon accentuating curves and selecting the right color nails and lipstick. Men will only respond to her based on external factors that he can see with his eyes. But true beauty is different and can only be defined by how a woman makes a man feel in her presence, not what a man sees with the naked eye.

This year, ladies of the feminist ilk are in desperate need of a good face wash and to start over with the following inner-beauty tips from a happily married man.

A woman’s strength is not in oppressing others. No one owes you anything… not society and especially not men. Victimhood is ugly and can be seen from miles away. A truly strong woman sees value in her God-given ability to nurture and care for others.

Sex should be sacred and secret. Outward expressions of sexuality are uncomfortable for everyone, not just people of the opposite sex. Just because you are comfortable with sex doesn’t mean everyone else should be. Consider this as you network, make friends and date.

Equality with men is a myth. Women who compete with men do not value themselves or the men they are competing with. A woman’s gifts are just as valuable as a man’s, even though they are biologically different. This is what makes the opposing sexes special. Never should a woman forsake what makes her stand out. Instead of envying what a man has, the wise woman is grateful for what qualities she does possess and also appreciates the challenges that are unique to men.

Women are our life givers. To be pro-abortion is to be anti-life and thus anti-woman.

As women conflate pride with egotism and promiscuity, men… no, society yearns for the ladies of yesteryear… the modest, demure ones who had more to offer the world than physical beauty. All the world’s weaves, lashes, and rainbow hair dye won’t make up for the valuable homemaking skills, nurture and intuition that is lost on the Jezebels of this era. Feminism exists to fill up women (and some men) with hot air, eventually leaving them lonely, angry, sad, and deflated once reality’s sharp needle makes eventual contact.

Sadly, I meet ladies who are looking around in their 30s and 40s and wondering why life isn’t the way they want it to be. Many of these women are single mothers, unable to find a partner, feeling isolated and depressed. But instead of looking in the vanity mirror, many still believe men and misogyny are the cause. My hope is that they come to terms with this single truth: nothing beautiful comes from a woman who believes in feminism. To cast this away is to find true beauty within.

SOURCE 





Vatican tamps down clamor over Benedict’s new celibacy book

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican on Monday sought to downplay the decision by retired Pope Benedict XVI to reaffirm the “necessity” of a celibate priesthood at the same time that Pope Francis is considering ordaining married men.

The book, “From the Depths of Our Hearts: Priesthood, Celibacy and the Crisis of the Catholic Church,’’ is coauthored with conservative Cardinal Robert Sarah.

Benedict’s intervention was extraordinary because he had promised to remain “hidden from the world” when he retired in 2013, and pledged his obedience to the new pope.

The implications for such an intervention are grave, given that many Catholics nostalgic for Benedict’s orthodoxy are already deeply opposed to Francis, with some even considering Benedict’s resignation illegitimate.

The book is likely to fuel renewed anxiety about the wisdom of Benedict’s decision to call himself “emeritus pope,’’ rather than merely a retired bishop. In that light, it is significant that the English edition of the book lists the author as “Benedict XVI,’’ with no mention of his emeritus papal status on the cover.

“The priesthood of Jesus Christ causes us to enter into a life that consists of becoming one with him and renouncing all that belongs only to us,’’ he writes. “For priests, this is the foundation of the necessity of celibacy.”

Marriage, he writes, requires man to give himself totally to his family. “Since serving the Lord likewise requires the total gift of a man, it does not seem possible to carry on the two vocations simultaneously.”

Catholic social media was abuzz Monday after Benedict’s bombshell, with Francis’ supporters saying it showed the problems of having an “emeritus pope’’ seemingly undermining the current one, and suggesting that Benedict — at age 92 and increasingly feeble — was being manipulated by his conservative entourage.

Mark Brumley, the president of Ignatius Press, however, denounced such conspiracies and said Benedict isn’t being used.

“Why some folks choose to interpret the new book by Pope Emeritus Benedict and Cardinal Sarah in anti-Pope Francis ways speaks volumes,’’ he tweeted. “Let’s pray for healing for the critics that they can rejoice in a new work from two great churchmen of our time, including a major theologian.’’

SOURCE 





The decline of religion in American family life

Most Americans today continue to be raised in a religious denomination or tradition. Only 12 percent of Americans report being raised outside a formal religious tradition. Half (50 percent) report being raised Protestant, close to three in 10 (29 percent) say they were raised Catholic, and significantly fewer Americans were brought up Mormon (2 percent), Jewish (2 percent), Muslim (1 percent), Orthodox (1 percent), or something else (1 percent).

However, there are significant differences in the religious upbringing of Americans across generations. Young adults (age 18 to 29) are far more likely to have been raised without religion than are seniors (age 65 or older). Roughly one in five (22 percent) young adults report that they were not raised in any particular religion, compared to only 3 percent of seniors. Notably, the proportion of young adults who have always been religiously unaffiliated is nearly as large as those who have left religion to become unaffiliated.

Younger Americans have had less robust religious experiences during their childhood than previous generations have. Fewer than one in three (29 percent) young adults say they attended religious services with their family at least weekly when they were growing up. More than half (52 percent) of seniors say the same. About one-third (32 percent) of young adults say they never attended religious services during their formative years. Young adults also report lower rates of attending Sunday school or other religious education programs as children. Only 27 percent of young adults say they attended Sunday school at least weekly. Among seniors, more than half (55 percent) say they attended Sunday school or a similar type of religious program during their childhood.

A similar pattern is evident in religious activities in the home. About one in three (32 percent) young adults report that they said grace or prayed with their family at meals at least once a week during their childhood. Nearly half (46 percent) of seniors say the same. Young adults are about twice as likely as seniors to say they never said grace or prayed at mealtime (38 percent vs. 21 percent). Young adults are about as likely as seniors to say they read scripture or prayed with their family at least once a week growing up (26 percent vs. 30 percent), but young adults are significantly more likely to say they never did (44 percent vs. 32 percent). Young adults are also more likely than seniors to say that they never participated in religious holidays in their home growing up. Nearly one in four (24 percent) young adults report never celebrating religious holidays, compared to 11 percent of seniors.

Generational differences in religious upbringing come down to parenting decisions and priorities. However, structural changes in family life may play a role as well. Americans raised by divorced or separated parents report less robust religious experiences during their childhood. Close to half (47 percent) of Americans raised by parents who were married during their formative years say they attended worship services at least once a week with their family growing up. In contrast, only 28 percent of Americans raised in households with divorced or separated parents report this frequency of religious attendance. There is a similar-sized gap in Sunday school attendance. About half (47 percent) of Americans growing up in households with married parents report attending Sunday school or a religious education program weekly or more often, compared to 27 percent of those raised by divorced or separated parents. Finally, Americans whose parents were married are more likely to have regularly said grace or prayed with their family during mealtimes than those whose parents were divorced or separated (44 percent vs. 32 percent).

This effect is evident across generations. The difference between younger adults (age 18 to 34) raised by divorced or separated parents and those raised by married parents mirrors the national gap. For example, younger adults with married parents are about twice as likely to say they attended services at least weekly during their childhood as are those whose parents were divorced or separated (41 percent vs. 20 percent).

Another way changes in family life may affect formative religious experiences is the rise of interfaith families. Recent research suggests that one in five Americans are raised with mixed religious backgrounds and that this trend is accelerating.[1] Americans raised by parents with different religious beliefs or identities are less religiously active during childhood. A majority (56 percent) of Americans whose parents have similar religious backgrounds say they attended services with their family at least weekly. In contrast, fewer than half (43 percent) of those with parents who have different religious backgrounds report attending religious services weekly during their childhood. Americans raised by parents with similar religious backgrounds are also more likely to say they prayed or said grace with their families at meals at least once a week (57 percent vs. 41 percent).

The Decline of Religious Marriages

The shifting religious landscape is also affecting the role religion plays in important life moments. For older married Americans, a religious wedding—officiated by a religious leader and held in a religious venue such as a church—was the most common type of ceremony. Six in 10 (60 percent) married Americans age 65 or older report that they were married by a religious leader in a church or religious setting. Another 13 percent say they were married by a religious official in a nonreligious setting. Roughly one-quarter (27 percent) say their wedding celebration was officiated by a justice of the peace, friend, or family member in a nonreligious location. Younger married Americans (age 18 to 34) are increasingly opting for secular venues and ceremonies. Only 36 percent of younger married Americans say their ceremony was officiated by a religious figure and held in a religious location such as a church or worship center. Sixteen percent say they were married by a religious leader in a nonreligious setting, while nearly half (48 percent) report being married by a different type of officiant in a secular venue.

There is evidence that this trend will continue. Among Americans who have never been married, only 30 percent say they would prefer to be married in a church or other house of worship by a religious leader. Fourteen percent say they would like to be married by a religious leader in a nonreligious setting, while the majority (56 percent) say they would prefer to have their wedding officiated by a justice of the peace, friend, or family member in a nonreligious location.

Married Americans who had no religious affiliation growing up are far more likely to have had a secular wedding service. More than seven in 10 (71 percent) married Americans who were raised in a nonreligious household, compared to only 36 percent of those who were raised in a religion, report that they were married by a justice of the peace, family member, or friend in a secular setting.

The most important reason couples decide to have a secular wedding service is also the most obvious: They are not religious. Sixty-nine percent of unaffiliated Americans with an unaffiliated spouse report that they had a secular service. Fewer unaffiliated people with a religious spouse (51 percent) say their ceremony was conducted by a justice of peace, friend, or family member in a nonreligious location.

The Rise of Secular Couples

Today, two-thirds (66 percent) of unaffiliated Americans who are married or living with a partner report that their spouse or partner is also unaffiliated, but this was not always the case. According to the General Social Survey, in the 1970s only about one-third (34 percent) of married Americans who were religiously unaffiliated reported that their spouse was also unaffiliated.[2] The majority of unaffiliated Americans of that era had a spouse who was religious.[3]

Notably, younger unaffiliated Americans are more likely to have spouses or partners with similar beliefs than are those who are older. Nearly eight in 10 (78 percent) younger unaffiliated Americans (age 18 to 34) say their spouse or partner is also unaffiliated. Among unaffiliated Americans age 50 or older, slightly more than half (55 percent) report that their spouse shares the same religious identity.

Religious Disaffiliation: Who Leaves and When

Approximately one in five (19 percent) Americans raised in a religious tradition no longer identify with any religion as an adult. But patterns of religious disaffiliation are not constant across demographic and political identities.

Younger Americans report much greater rates of disaffiliation than do older Americans. Three in 10 (30 percent) young adults raised in a religious tradition growing up say they no longer affiliate with one as an adult. Among seniors, only 11 percent of those raised in a religion are currently unaffiliated.

There are sharp political differences in patterns of religious disaffiliation as well. Democrats brought up in religious households are roughly three times more likely than Republicans to have left religion. Nearly one in four (23 percent) Democrats brought up in a religion no longer identify with a religious tradition, while only 8 percent of Republicans say the same.

Childhood religious activity also is strongly related to current patterns of religious affiliation. Americans raised in homes with more robust religious experiences are less likely to disaffiliate from religion entirely. More than one-third (35 percent) of Americans who were raised in a religious tradition but report very low levels of childhood engagement growing up now identify as religiously unaffiliated.[4] In contrast, only 7 percent of Americans raised in a religious tradition who report very high levels of religious activity during their formative years have disaffiliated.

Age of Disaffiliation

Although higher education has frequently been offered as an explanation for the lower rates of religious adherence among young adults, most Americans who have become religiously unaffiliated report that they disaffiliated before they turned 18. Fifty-seven percent of Americans who disaffiliated say they did so before reaching adulthood, about one-third (35 percent) report that they disaffiliated between the age of 18 and 29, and only 9 percent say they left after the age of 30.

Young people are particularly likely to leave during their formative years. Seventy percent of young adults who have left their childhood religion to become unaffiliated report that they stopped identifying with their childhood religion when they were younger than 18 years old. Among seniors who have disaffiliated, 49 percent left religion during adolescence, while 51 percent left after they turned 18.

Looking for Religion?

Few Americans who are currently religiously unaffiliated report that they are looking for a religion. Only 5 percent of unaffiliated Americans say they are now looking for a religion that would be right for them. Ninety-five percent say they are not doing this.

Are Parents Still Raising Children in Religion?

Most Americans say that raising children in a religion is important for providing moral guidance and instilling proper values. Roughly two-thirds (65 percent) of the public agree that raising children in a religion is important so they can learn good values. Only about one-third (35 percent) disagree. However, there are considerable differences of opinion by age. Fewer than half (48 percent) of young adults agree that raising children in a religious community is important to provide a moral foundation. A majority (53 percent) of young adults say this is not the case. In contrast, more than three-quarters (76 percent) of seniors say bringing children up in religion is crucial to instill good values.

Generational differences in views about the importance of religious education are largely driven by varying rates of religious affiliation across age cohorts. A majority (69 percent) of young adults who belong to a religious tradition agree that bringing up children in religion is important to teach them good values. This view is held by only 19 percent of young adults who are unaffiliated. However, even among religiously affiliated adults, views about the importance of religious upbringing differ by age. Religious young adults are less likely to agree that raising children in a religion is important than are religious seniors, 85 percent of whom agree.

Religious Activities in the Household

Close to half (44 percent) of parents with children under the age of 18 say they pray or read scripture with their children. More than four in 10 (42 percent) say they take them to religious services regularly, while a similar number (38 percent) report that they send their children to Sunday school or some other religious education program.

The level of religious engagement is noticeably higher among religious parents. Parents who are religiously affiliated are much more likely than those who are unaffiliated to report that they pray or read scripture with their children (55 percent vs. 14 percent), take them to religious services (53 percent vs. 11 percent), or send them to Sunday school (47 percent vs. 12 percent).

The pattern of religious involvement among young parents (age 18 to 34) with children under the age of 18 does not differ appreciably from parents overall with children in this age range. Nearly half (46 percent) of young parents say they pray or read scripture with their children. More than four in 10 (44 percent) say they attend religious services with them regularly, but only 36 percent say they send them to Sunday school or another religious education program.

However, older parents with grown children report being much more religiously engaged with their children during their formative years.[5] Among parents age 65 or older who have grown children, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) say they sent them to Sunday school or some other religious education program, and more than six in 10 (61 percent) say they regularly took them to religious services. Notably, older parents are not more likely to have prayed or read scripture with their children when they were young. Fewer than half (47 percent) of older parents say they read scripture or prayed with their children growing up.

Given that younger parents are much more likely to have young children, it is worth considering whether lower levels of religious activity in these households are affected by the age of the child or children. Compared to parents with young children (age 0 to 6), parents with school-age children (age 7 to 12) are more likely to report higher levels of religious engagement in their household. Parents with school-age children are more likely to participate in regular religious attendance with their children (49 percent vs. 37 percent), pray or read scripture with their children (57 percent vs. 42 percent), and send their children to Sunday school (45 percent vs. 27 percent).[6] However, parents with teenage children report lower levels of religious involvement. Among parents with children living at home who are between the age of 13 and 17, only 36 percent report praying or reading scripture with them, 40 percent report sending them to Sunday school, and 46 percent report taking them to religious services regularly.

Interfaith Families, Formative Religious Experiences, and Children’s Religious Engagement

A recent study found that about only six in 10 new marriages included people who belonged to the same religious tradition.[7] The rise of interfaith families matters because parental religious homophily is closely tied to children’s religious participation. When parents share the same religious identity, they are much more likely to involve their children in religious activities both inside and outside the home.[8] A majority of parents who share the same religious identity as their spouses or partners say they pray or read scripture with their children (64 percent), take their children to religious services regularly (62 percent), or send them to Sunday school or another religious education program (52 percent).

In contrast, parents who have spouses or partners with different religious backgrounds report lower levels of religious engagement with their children.[9] About three in 10 among couples with differing religious beliefs pray or read scripture with their children (31 percent), attend religious services with them (36 percent), or send them to a religious education program (32 percent). Finally, unaffiliated couples with children under age 18 report even lower levels of religious activity in their household.[10] Less than one in 10 unaffiliated parents with unaffiliated spouses or partners pray or read scripture with their children (7 percent), attend religious services with them (8 percent), or send their children to a religious education program (9 percent).[11]

The importance of formative religious experiences is also evident. Among Americans who report very low levels of religious activity during their childhood, only 11 percent pray or read with their children now, only 7 percent take them to religious services regularly, and only 7 percent send them to Sunday school. Those with robust religious exposure when they were growing up report being very religiously active with their children. Americans with very high levels of religious involvement during their childhood are about 10 times more likely to pray or read with their children (87 percent), attend worship services with them (84 percent), or send them to Sunday school (80 percent).

Young People Express Greater Uncertainty About God

Although the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God, previous research has found that religious uncertainty is common among both believers and nonbelievers.[12] Consistent with this work, we find that religious doubting is fairly common among the public. More than half (51 percent) of Americans say they believe in God without any doubt. Twenty-eight percent say they believe in God but sometimes have doubts. About one in five Americans do not believe in God, including 9 percent who express some uncertainty about their lack of belief and 12 percent who say they never have doubts.

There are yawning generational divisions in views about God. Only 30 percent of young adults (age 18 to 29) say they believe in God without ever questioning their belief. About one-third (32 percent) say they believe in God but have doubts. One in five (20 percent) say they do not believe in God and never question their view, while 19 percent say they do not believe but have doubts occasionally. In contrast, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of seniors say they believe in God without ever having doubts. Twenty-two percent say they believe in God but express some uncertainty about it. Only 13 percent say they do not believe in God, and only 8 percent say they have no doubts about this belief.

The higher rate of uncertainty in belief about God among young adults is not solely due to the disproportionate share of young people who are unaffiliated. Religiously affiliated young adults report higher rates of religious doubting than do older affiliated adults. About half (45 percent) of young adults who are religiously affiliated report that they never doubt their belief in the existence of God, compared to 74 percent of religiously affiliated seniors who say the same.

Americans are divided over whether being moral is contingent on a belief in God. Close to half (48 percent) of Americans say it is necessary to believe in God to be moral and have good values while about as many (52 percent) disagree.

Views about the relationship between belief in God and morality differs significantly across generational lines. Only about one-third (35 percent) of young adults say that a belief in God is requisite to be moral, while more than half (52 percent) of seniors say it is.

Young People Express More Ambivalence About Religion

The public is divided over the degree to which religious people are tolerant of others. Close to half (47 percent) of Americans say religious people are generally less tolerant of others, while a majority (53 percent) disagree with this statement.

Young adults express much more skepticism about religious people than do older adults. Nearly six in 10 (59 percent) young people say religious people are generally less tolerant, while only 34 percent of seniors agree. Two-thirds (66 percent) of seniors disagree with this statement.

There are yawning partisan differences in views about religious people. More than six in 10 (61 percent) Democrats, compared to only 30 percent of Republicans, believe that religious people are generally less tolerant of others.

Most Americans reject the idea that religion causes more problems in society than it solves. A majority (56 percent) of the public say they disagree with the notion that religion brings more problems than solutions, although 45 percent agree.

Views about the societal benefits of religion differ markedly across generations. A majority (55 percent) of young adults agree that religion causes more problems for society than it solves, a view held by only 32 percent of seniors. More than two-thirds (68 percent) of seniors disagree, including 47 percent who completely disagree.

SOURCE 

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here

************************************