That Is Not What I Said

Andrew, on my post about Linker, Rorty, the religious right and liberalism:

Ross responds by arguing that Richard John Neuhaus and his theocon friends are only interested in persuasion and changing the culture, not using the levers of politics and the law to insist on their religious convictions. Please.

Please yourself. I said no such thing. I said that Linker sometimes seems to oppose both political action based on religious conviction and non-political attempts to Catholicize (or Rortyize, or whatever) the culture through proselytization and persuasion. I also said, as I've said many times before, that I disagree on both counts: I think that Americans should be free to proselytize privately and that they should feel comfortable using "the levers of politics" (I love how Andrew makes the democratic process sound sinister) to promote policies that spring from religious convictions. And obviously Richard John Neuhaus is interested in doing both; only an idiot would claim otherwise, and I don't know why Andrew is mistaking me for one.

Comments

Andrew Sullivan, mischaracterizing someone's argument?

Nah.

Posted by Ellen | June 13, 2007 2:52 PM

"(I love how Andrew makes the democratic process sound sinister)"

Well, that seems his Modus Operandi. Indeed, the entirety of his work "The Theocons" presents such political and cultural activism as some sin against pluralism.

I often want to ask if we should repeal all those "thou shalt not steal" prohibitions.

Posted by Fitz | June 13, 2007 2:54 PM

Maybe because he's an intellectual demagogue?

Posted by John Podhoretz | June 13, 2007 3:03 PM

Wait, aren't you both Catholic? I think you're not supposed to please yourselves.

Hey, is that NRO's unintellectual demagogue casting stones at Andrew, in the comment above? Hi JPod!

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 13, 2007 3:16 PM

Wait, aren't you both Catholic? I think you're not supposed to please yourselves.

???

Posted by Art Deco | June 13, 2007 4:06 PM

Maybe because he's an intellectual demagogue?

Ya think?

Posted by Al | June 13, 2007 4:23 PM

Isn't there a difference between "using the levers of politics and the law to insist on their religious convictions" and using them "to promote policies that spring from religious convictions"? Making heresy a crime would be the former; making abortion a crime the latter. Neuhaus is a neoconservative liberal democrat. In fact, a problem with the First Things crowd is that they will ditch Catholic doctrine when it conflicts with neoconservatism and the crusade for democracy.

Posted by Pithlord | June 13, 2007 4:46 PM

Ross, please. The conversation with Linker need not be ongoing. It is tedious--from Linker's end. The man thinks he's Voltaire.

Posted by William Johnson | June 13, 2007 4:50 PM

Sullivan's post has become all too typical of him lately: sloppy, accusatory, self-rightous.

Posted by CJ Knew | June 13, 2007 5:43 PM

Pithlord

"In fact, a problem with the First Things crowd is that they will ditch Catholic doctrine when it conflicts with neoconservatism and the crusade for democracy."

There are those. But as a "ROFTER" I must defend the journal as interdenominational and pluralistic politically. (although certainly conservative)

Posted by Fitz | June 13, 2007 5:50 PM

Isn't there a difference between "using the levers of politics and the law to insist on their religious convictions" and using them "to promote policies that spring from religious convictions"? Making heresy a crime would be the former; making abortion a crime the latter.

Both phrases are so vague that either crime could be construed as an example of either.

The Supreme Court says that for a law to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment it must have a valid secular purpose. A law that serves only religious purposes is not constitutional. And the secular purpose must be genuine, not just a pretext for a religious one. If Ross or Andrew disagree with this test, I'd like to know what alternative they propose.

Posted by Mixner | June 13, 2007 7:40 PM

I guess I come late to the debate (at least as it has played out here) but does Ross think that Neuhaus should be allowed to make gay citizens second class citizens? Is it ok for Neuhaus to marginalize gays as long as he gets others to go along by virtue of his religious reason? Is the distinction here really that formal? I'm confused - it seems like Sullivan is attributing to Ross a more liberal position than the one he wants to accept.

Rawls obviously says that proselytism is all well an good as long as it doesn't aim to take away certain Kantian, inalienable rights. When it does, it's no longer can be called "public" reaosn. Does Ross think this is misguided? I'm not a liberal in the Rawlsian sense but I can't tell if Ross is trying to make a break here or what.

Posted by berger | June 13, 2007 7:43 PM

Is it ok for Neuhaus to marginalize gays as long as he gets others to go along by virtue of his religious reason?

Depends on how you define "marginalize." I don't think marriage is a "Kantian, unalienable" right, so I don't think preventing a man from marrying a man marginalizes him or makes him a second-class citizen. More to the point, I don't think opposing gay marriage crosses the line defining "'public' reason."

Andrew Sullivan feels otherwise. He sees civil marriage as a civil right, and sees attempts to deny that right as attempts to foist religious views on others. But he's wrong. Convincing a majority of the voters in a given state that gay marriage is not a good idea isn't foisting anything on anyone; it's proposing an idea and letting people decide if they agree.

Posted by Joe Magarac | June 13, 2007 10:01 PM

Mixner:

Whoah! Whoah! Whoah! Nice shootin' Tex! I guess you didn't realize that there are these people called lawyers who actually know something about the 1st amendment. Let's just say it's a bit more complicated than you describe.

Posted by Aaron | June 13, 2007 10:47 PM

I wasn't suggesting that my description was complete. A secular purpose is necessary but may not be sufficient. Ross's statement that he thinks Americans "should feel comfortable using [the democratic process] to promote policies that spring from religious convictions" suggests to me that he doesn't even think a law need have a secular purpose to be valid, hence my query.

Posted by Mixner | June 13, 2007 10:57 PM

Thanks for the feedback Joe. The question that comes to my mind in response is do you think that the freedom of religion is an unalienable right, and if so why don't you see the freedom to marry as an extension of it?

Posted by berger | June 13, 2007 11:29 PM

It's funny how people throw the word "Kantian" around without acknowledging that he had strong views on the legal regulation of sexual morality and they were a lot closer to Neuhaus than Sullivan.

Posted by pedant | June 14, 2007 12:22 AM

Ross,
Pure democracy is of course sinister, without a culture and legal framework that respect individual rights to constrain the majority's power. As you know perfectly well, among the early British settlers were religious dissidents fleeing the imposition of "policies that spring from religious conviction". No one should censor the theocratic appeals of Justice Sunday-type events, of course, but they aren't something we should be "comfortable" about ... unless we are content to imagine everyone experiences the religious rhetoric of our particular sect or theological inclinations with the same equanimity that we, its adherents, do; but that naive assumption trivializes the divergent religious and philosophic beliefs of fellow citizens. For the most part, religious beliefs are best advanced in the public sphere by secular argumentation (hopefully the policies one seeks to promote have good secular grounds as well), rather than by religious appeals that "preach to the converted" and that are bound to alienate many of those who cannot partake of its special frame of reference.

Posted by jason | June 14, 2007 1:34 AM

Pedant - actually, Kant pretty clearly rejected homosexuality outright (lectures on ethics). This is way I refer to a "Kantian theory" (as in a theory inspired by Kant) rather than "Kant's theory". (Rawls repeatedly acknowledged Kant as the prime inspiration for his philosophical liberalism.)

Posted by berger | June 14, 2007 5:27 AM

A great race war does approaches. Each race will fight brave. Each race will fight for own survival. But in the end only one race will survive.

The white man had day in sun. Its now Age of the Brown Man.

By 2110 either from war or intermarriage not a single baby will be born with blond hair and blue eyes.

Posted by Rajnath Singh | June 14, 2007 7:24 AM

Star Wars Episode VII: Age of the Brown Man. In which Han Solo is defeated by Lando Calrissian in inter-alliance fighting. He marries Princess Leia, and their brown progeny take over the galaxy. Great idea Rajnath!

Posted by Aaron | June 14, 2007 10:03 AM

The white man had day in sun. Its now Age of the Brown Man.

By 2110 either from war or intermarriage not a single baby will be born with blond hair and blue eyes.

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 11:05 AM

"The white man had day in sun. Its now Age of the Brown Man."

"By 2110 either from war or intermarriage not a single baby will be born with blond hair and blue eyes."

Perhaps: but the vast majority of them will be Catholic..

Hurray for the browning of America.

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 11:06 AM

berger
“The question that comes to my mind in response is do you think that the freedom of religion is an unalienable right, and if so why don't you see the freedom to marry as an extension of it?”

The law has never regarded the common law right to marriage as an extension of religious liberty (we chased the Mormons into the desert and withheld Statehood until they promised to change their laws)

A proper reading of Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage reveals the true nature of the common law right to marriage. The New York High Court points out in its recent SS “M” decision while discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Judge Graffeo noted….

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 11:38 AM

Fitz,
The common law is not a sound basis for discerning our culture's accumulated moral understandings about marriage. For starters, marital rape was traditionally legal and a married woman's owning property was not. Appeal to tradition often serves simply to evade, rather than address, other kinds of moral claims on the proper shaping of our social practices.

Posted by jason | June 14, 2007 1:11 PM

Perhaps: but the vast majority of them will be Catholic..
Hurray for the browning of America.

More likely, they will have no religion.

Hurray for the secularizing of America.

Posted by Mixner | June 14, 2007 1:39 PM

jason

“For starters, marital rape was traditionally legal”

Marital Rape was not “legal” – intrusions into the domestic sphere by the State was considered a violation of the foundational intermediating institution of marriage (and still are)

“and a married woman's owning property was not” - Marital property is owned in common by the husband & the Wife. (and still is) Husbands were given dominion in the handling of that property while they were alive.

“Appeal to tradition” Is that what the common law is? Does this all apply to Romer v Evans, or Brown v. Board, or Roe v. Wade.

“often serve simply to evade, rather than address, other kinds of moral claims on the proper shaping of our social practices.”

All those SCOTUS precedents ground the right to marriage in the right to procreate. Who’s evading. And what “moral claim” have you that is “proper”?

Mixner

“More likely, they will have no religion.”
“Hurray for the secularizing of America.”

"Did you catch this man?" asked the colonel, frowning. Father Brown looked him full in his frowning face. "Yes," he said, "I caught him, with an unseen hook and an invisible line which is long enough to let him wander to the ends of the world, and still to bring him back with a twitch upon the thread."

G. K. Chesterton - The Innocence of Father Brown

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 2:19 PM

Fitz,

Gibberish.

Posted by Mixner | June 14, 2007 2:23 PM

Mixner

If you cant figure it out on your own, I can hardly explain it to you.

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 2:37 PM

Contra Mr. Sullivan, I would be quite content with civil unions of some kind; marriage need not enter into it. No need to excessively ruffle the feathers of the fickle mob, after all.

But of course, theoconservatives oppose this as well. A classic case of not being able to take "yes" for an answer.

Posted by Baron Corvo | June 14, 2007 2:47 PM

'"I caught him, with an unseen hook and an invisible line which is long enough to let him wander to the ends of the world, and still to bring him back with a twitch upon the thread."'

--Ah yes, The old "[g]ive us the child before he is seven and we have him for life."

It may relieve secularists and dismay the pious to know that their ancient stereotypes of abject Catholic Latin American peasants are simply no longer valid. Thanks to the rise of evangelical Protestantism (not my favorite sect of Christians, to be sure), religious pluralism and the formation of civil society in most Latin coutries is a 'fait accompli'. This means more glossolalia, but more secure democratic institutions as well, an effect that will hopefully hold true for "el Norte" as well.

"There's no irony like God's irony."

Posted by Arturo | June 14, 2007 3:05 PM

Arturo

How exactly are "religious pluralism and the formation of civil society" as well as "more secure democratic institutions" somehow "Thanks to the rise of evangelical Protestantism"? (mainly Pentecostalism by the way)

"abject Catholic Latin American peasants are simply no longer valid"

"No longer valid" or Somewhat less totalizing then before?

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 3:21 PM

--Ah yes, The old "[g]ive us the child before he is seven and we have him for life."

Is that what he meant to say?

Fewer and fewer American children are being raised in a religion at all. Each generation is less religious than the last, which in turn makes each generation less likely to pass on a religion to their own children. Even the ones that are raised in a religion are increasingly likely to abandon it as an adult. It's a virtuous cycle.

Posted by Mixner | June 14, 2007 3:35 PM

"Is that what he meant to say?"

No it was not; nor was I goading for a fight on secularization theory (that has its detractors, especially of late)

What I was saying is that those Catholic civilization and human understandings will inform those recent immigrants in ways very real yet opaque (to some).

A thesis that holds even if actual religious practice is abandoned in any given individual by the way.

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 4:04 PM

What I was saying is that those Catholic civilization and human understandings will inform those recent immigrants in ways very real yet opaque (to some).

Well, your meaning is certainly opaque. "Catholic civilization and human understandings." Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

The Catholic Church is clearly in serious decline in the developed world. The relative stability of the nominally Catholic population in America is an artifact of current U.S. immigration policy, which has the effect of favoring the "historically Catholic" poor nations of Latin America, and Mexico. Even with that artificial boost, Americans who identify as Catholic increasingly dissent from and disobey the teachings of their church.

Posted by Mixner | June 14, 2007 4:36 PM

"What I was saying is that those Catholic civilization and human understandings will inform those recent immigrants in ways very real yet opaque (to some).

A thesis that holds even if actual religious practice is abandoned in any given individual by the way."

--Well, yes; but it certainly makes a difference whether their "understandings" are similar to those of French or Italians, or to those of Poles or Nigerians. (NB: All nationalities cited are by way of example.) I'm banking on it being more like Italians, who regard the Church like an obstreperous grandfather, beloved, listened to respectfully, then ignored. We shall see.

Posted by Arturo | June 14, 2007 4:56 PM

Mixner

Culture matters, it informs who we are and how we approach ideas.

I take your Secularization grandstanding for what its worth. Many dispute your overall inevitability scenario.

Religion ebbs and flows, revivals happen and new peoples bring new perspectives and renewed energy.

However.. Your inability to catch my original Chesterton quote for what it means as well as your rejection of my explanation does nothing to refute the truth of the phenomena.

Suffice to say: if a boot load of atheists were coming across the boarder in the millions it would have a profound cultural effect.

Posted by Fitz | June 14, 2007 5:05 PM

Fitz,

I take your Secularization grandstanding for what its worth. Many dispute your overall inevitability scenario.

I didn't say it was inevitable. I said it's more likely, based on the evidence. And calling it "grandstanding" is not an argument.

Religion ebbs and flows, revivals happen and new peoples bring new perspectives and renewed energy.

The dramatic decline of religion that has occurred in the developed world over the past century or more is unprecedented in recorded human history. The decline shows no sign of ending, and there is evidence that it is accelerating. You are of course free to bury your head in the sand and ignore this evidence if you so choose.

Posted by Mixner | June 14, 2007 5:15 PM

Fitz,
Your clarifications about marital rape and marital property are taken, but they affirm my point that traditional legal understandings are not necessarily just. As for the precedents you cite, although our history is a complex one, in some sense Romer, Brown, and Roe represent departures from what had been standard social practice. The justification of marriage rights in procreation (which you incorrectly attribute in part to Romer, a decision about discrimination in which the word marriage does not appear) is in my view a holdover from more traditional understandings of sexual autonomy that protect it only insofar as doing so conforms with traditional, highly restrictive gender roles. The holdings in these cases expand freedom and equality in a way that has been relied upon by countless people (to answer your question, these are the moral values that underlie the kind of moral claim I'm making); that, rather than their controversial legal reasoning (many feminists would rather see abortion rights grounded in a 14th Amendment equality claim than in the privacy right undergirding it in Roe), points to perhaps their main significance today. They (as Ross acknowledged earlier this week about abortion), like the Miranda decision that Chief Justice Rehnquist reaffirmed in Dickerson v. United States after previously opposing it, have become what the Chief Justice, referring to Miranda, called "part of our national culture". (Of course, they were that previously, in a subterranean way; those of us who believe people shouldn't be relegated to second-class citizenship because of their consensual sexual choices think it's good that a fuller account of the reality of our cultural life has been acknowledged and affirmed in our legal discourse, so that such social hierarchy and control is a little harder to impose on those whose feelings direct them to choose lifestyles that differ from ostensible gender norms.)

Posted by jason | June 14, 2007 5:21 PM

"How exactly are "religious pluralism and the formation of civil society" as well as "more secure democratic institutions" somehow "Thanks to the rise of evangelical Protestantism"? (mainly Pentecostalism by the way)."

--One does not have to accept the 'Black Legand' of Southern European countries (or their New World former colonies) as being uniquely despotic (as compared with what, Stalinist Russia?) to see that the correlation of democracy with a traditionally Catholic outlook was not especially strong until relatively recently.

To be sure, untrammelled democratic majoritarianism can impose a peculiar despotism all its own--but that is the point. Unitary societies with 'uno Rey (or Presidente), uno Ley, uno Fe'; where there is no 'civil society' for an individual to stand outside the traditional triumvirate of Church, State, and Family, are neither distinguished by liberty, nor by safety for religious (or non-religious) minorities. Jews may flourish under the tolerance granted them by their Most Gracious Sovreign (or the electorate)--only to have that toleration whipped away by the next sovreign (or election).

The now considerable number of non-Catholic Christians present in traditionally Catholic countries in Latin America means that in order to maintain social peace and democratic stability in coutries where democracy is a relatively recent development, the officially or unofficially priviledged position of the Catholic Church has changed. A good account of these processes unfolding in Mexico can be found in Andres Oppenheimer's book "Bordering on Chaos".

"'abject Catholic Latin American peasants are simply no longer valid'

'No longer valid' or Somewhat less totalizing then before?"

--I was referring to the common stereotype held by Anglo-Americans that the typical Mexican migrant is docile, excessively pious, and credulous. Whether this is a positive or negative stereotype depends on the views of the person holding it. The important thing is that not only is it a stereotype, hence misleading; but that any kernel of validity it may have once had has long since faded. Thus the exaggerated fears of secularists and the exaggerated hopes of theoconservative Catholics are both vain.

Posted by Arturo | June 14, 2007 5:49 PM

The Massachusetts legislature just voted overwhelmingly to reject a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in that state. This probably means that the anti-SSM campaign in MA is effectively dead. They could still start again, from scratch, but the trend of declining support for a constitutional amendment makes that unlikely.

Champagne for everyone. Except Fitz.

Posted by Mixner | June 14, 2007 7:52 PM

Fitz,

I'm sure Mixner got the idea of the Chesterton quote. Power of religion to bring us wayward atheists, agnostics and pagans back to God's bosom and all that.

I actually second one of your essential points: religious fervor ebbs and flows. Great Awakenings and Mormonism in North America, evangelical protestantism in South America, mutant Catholicism and Protestantism in Africa, Islam in the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and parts of Asia. Hard to deny a pattern over time. But I would argue (along with countless others) that, of the three broad sectarian groups that are most constitutive of "Western Christianity" (traditional Catholicism, mainline Prostestantism and evangelical protestantism), mainline prostestant groups and traditional Western European Catholicism are in the midst of a serious ebbing process.

In the meantime, it's hi-ho for Islam nearly everywhere and charismatic Christianity in Latin America and Africa. Atheism and agnosticism are doing pretty well in elite circles, though I don't expect that either will reach critical mass among the broader populace. Not because atheists and agnostics aren't right, but because religion is, and always has been, terrific emotional therapy for an often cruel world. And there's nothing wrong with therapy, really.

Posted by Immoralist | June 14, 2007 8:03 PM

Historical ebbs and flows have largely been a matter of one religion displacing another. That's not what's been happening in the west. Religion in general is declining. Even in America, long supposed to be an exception, there is abundant evidence of a large, long-standing, and apparently accelerating loss of religiosity.

The notion that religion is intrinsic to human beings and thus destined always to be popular and influential in human affairs is contradicted by the dramatic differences in the degree of religiosity between different countries and across generations within the same country.

Posted by Mixner | June 14, 2007 8:31 PM

Re: Even with that artificial boost, Americans who identify as Catholic increasingly dissent from and disobey the teachings of their church.

This happens to be true in Latin America too. The picture of Hispanics obediently following watever Mother Church tells them is a false one. Social Liberalism is growing south of the border too, notably in Mexico and Brazil.

Re: Re: Even with that artificial boost, Americans who identify as Catholic increasingly dissent from and disobey the teachings of their church.

This happens to be true in Latin America too. The picture of Hispanics obediently following watever Mother Church tells them is a false one. Social Liberalism is growing south of the border too, notably in Mexico and Brazil.

Re: Even the ones that are raised in a religion are increasingly likely to abandon it as an adult. It's a virtuous cycle.

The families that have the most children tend to be the most religious, so this demographic theory really doesn't hold up. Generally people who are rasied in a religion tend to stick with a religion-- though not necessarily their parents' faith; church-switching is rife in America. Meanwhile, non-religious families are becoming even more non-religious-- jetissoning the once-a-year appearance at Christmas or Easter, perhaps even the church wedding and the minister at the funeral. This is a reason behind our growing religious polarization: we are losing the religious middle, the people who had some vague and occasional church allegiance and functioned to keep the fanatics in line. Increasingly we are now left with strident fanatics on both sides.

Re: Even in America, long supposed to be an exception, there is abundant evidence of a large, long-standing, and apparently accelerating loss of religiosity.

Religion as an institution appears to be declining. Religious (or at least vaguely spiritualist) beliefs are not, not even in Europe. I have a group of cousins who have not set foot in a church since they were children (except maybe for a wedding); yet the whole gang of them believe in ghosts and prophetic dreams and the like. In many ways this free-floating mysticism resembles the situation in ancient Rome before the rise of Christianity: the official religion still maintained formally with some solid-believing adherents, while a whole raft of cultic upstarts and spiritual philosophies borrowed from abroad and even crude supernaturalism flourished.

Posted by JonF | June 14, 2007 9:37 PM

JonF,

The families that have the most children tend to be the most religious, so this demographic theory really doesn't hold up.

The statement of mine you're responding to here is a claim of fact, not a theory. And I have no idea why you think the correlation between religiosity and fertility implies that the claim is false. The correlation does seem to exist, but religiosity is declining anyway, implying that children raised in a religion are increasingly unlikely to inherit the religiosity of their parents. Not just the particular religion of their parents, but a committment to any religion.

Religion as an institution appears to be declining. Religious (or at least vaguely spiritualist) beliefs are not, not even in Europe.

Religion is not merely "vaguely spiritualist beliefs." Nor is it synonymous with theism. But both religion and theism are in decline. Many people who move away from religion may retain a vestigial, personalized belief in a supernatural agency or reality of some kind, but that is not the same thing as being religious, and the belief may have little or no influence on their political/moral/social beliefs or behavior. The essay Why The Gods Are Not Winning summarizes some of the evidence for the decline of religiosity. The essay Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns summarizes some of the evidence for the decline of theism in the west.

Posted by Mixner | June 14, 2007 10:37 PM

If part of one's definition is the explicit worship of something(s), then religion is indeed on the decline in the West.

If "religiosity", though, is understood as a worldview and value system, then it is indeed part of what it means to be human. It's interesting to note that the first Humanist Manifesto referred to humanism itself as a religion, even though it's adherents rejected "traditional" forms of religion.

Posted by Chris Burgwald | June 15, 2007 3:53 PM

Re: the correlation of democracy with a traditionally Catholic outlook was not especially strong until relatively recently.

For quite a while only Anglo nations did democracy even halfway well (if you ignore slavery, imperialism and the like). The French tried but whipsawed back and forth between reactionary monarchy and violent revolution. And we don't even need to analyze German history before 1945 in this regard. It doesn't seem taht religion had much to do with, but rather the accidents of English history: medieval kings who were so embroiled in trying to conquer France that they gave away the store at home; The War of the Roses which lopped off most of the hereditary English nobility and put a bourgeois monarchy and a bourgeois aristocracy in their place; the spectacular political incompetence of the Stuarts; followed by a couple of dull-witted German kings who couldn't even speak English.

Re: Children raised in a religion are increasingly unlikely to inherit the religiosity of their parents.

Um no. Secularization is increasing because people who in the past were just marginally religious (and there were always many nominal Christians, Jews etc.) have pretty much dumped institutional religion entirely now. The truly devout remain, in about the same numbers they always were.

Posted by JonF | June 16, 2007 10:05 PM

submissive male slaves

Posted by yceugvwnni | September 21, 2007 7:17 AM

free asian beast sex

Posted by eloybljkdp | September 21, 2007 7:20 AM

zoo sex free beastiality pics

Posted by fipicqrtis | September 21, 2007 7:21 AM

tramadol and blood or urine levels

Posted by qmbfcnazyr | October 30, 2007 2:45 AM

women fucking guys in ass

Posted by zayubwekme | October 30, 2007 2:47 AM

virgins boyslittle boyz xxx porn pics underground

Posted by ykgkevohrb | October 30, 2007 4:11 AM

strip poker party ideas

Posted by xlmopkiulb | October 30, 2007 4:13 AM

old fat women naked

Posted by rhqvheprtt | October 30, 2007 4:44 AM

play free roulette

Posted by brhswnhtyi | October 30, 2007 4:49 AM

florida online pharmacies tramadol soma free shipping

Posted by aqqawjsoec | October 30, 2007 5:01 AM

online maps of las vegas casinos

Posted by vgndttjswt | October 30, 2007 5:41 AM

free previews of people having sex

Posted by lcncbdclii | October 30, 2007 5:51 AM

young gays amateur

Posted by iovrqnzzkm | October 30, 2007 6:47 AM

pics of naked j lo

Posted by ozanajxhpa | October 30, 2007 6:51 AM

futurama ami porn

Posted by voduagojgj | October 30, 2007 8:32 AM

toni francis sex

Posted by cxapkbztdt | October 30, 2007 8:40 AM

black small dick

Posted by wsganphwjl | October 30, 2007 9:24 AM

free high quality sex photos

Posted by nuyevujumf | October 30, 2007 9:41 AM

paige davis sex tapes

Posted by fbfkgbspha | October 30, 2007 9:44 AM

hot free no credit card required insest porn

Posted by zdxokjkimp | October 30, 2007 10:17 AM

young boy gay clips

Posted by olkezjavwj | October 30, 2007 11:11 AM

nude pictures celebrity cynthia myers free movies site

Posted by fvhbclwdly | October 30, 2007 11:20 AM

big black ebony ass sucking dick

Posted by kfftvoxvdb | October 30, 2007 11:41 AM

naked cheerleader calenders

Posted by uldewsrqhh | October 30, 2007 12:05 PM

gay male small cock

Posted by hqnbkwzgoi | October 30, 2007 12:10 PM

internal anal porn

Posted by sqtaqwpdyr | October 30, 2007 12:12 PM

free nude sample movies

Posted by dzghcxhhay | October 30, 2007 12:49 PM

sex education lessons

Posted by kastngexhm | October 30, 2007 1:31 PM

free x rated porn of paris hilton

Posted by yusaooujrv | October 30, 2007 1:44 PM

indian sex babes

Posted by anclatmouz | October 30, 2007 1:45 PM

asian on black xxx

Posted by fbinavtbhq | October 30, 2007 1:51 PM

ratings best free poker sites

Posted by fufxkymvjb | October 30, 2007 2:07 PM

nude pamela anderson videos

Posted by fwrwcbvymd | October 30, 2007 2:17 PM

gay teens covered in cum

Posted by aakbrywgtw | October 30, 2007 2:21 PM

beast belle naked in movie while dancing

Posted by ohnstedmkk | November 8, 2007 9:17 PM

nike foot fetish gay

Posted by vksahhjwxd | November 27, 2007 6:00 AM

bondage gay porno free

Posted by odutdzpfvk | November 27, 2007 6:59 AM

no credit card free big boobs

Posted by bwdhyhtvvu | December 15, 2007 1:26 AM

aftergrass subganger townlet unthriftihood pigwidgeon inimically neuritis expensefulness
http://www.acupuncturechineseherbs.com/ >New York Acupuncture and Chinese Herbs Clinic
http://www.marcisracing.com/

Posted by Charles Weiss | December 16, 2007 3:42 PM

andrea and rene free lesbian video

Posted by skyzjpzhpd | December 17, 2007 10:38 AM

big asian men cock

Posted by xyxkvnnfee | January 2, 2008 9:42 PM

straight guys get dick

Posted by vstavxjrdw | January 2, 2008 10:20 PM

best free porn links

Posted by lcfjkwlhhb | January 12, 2008 7:38 PM