Help me combat a campus multiculturalist (was: Lessons from the Klondike)

Liberal orthodoxy holds that culture, religion and ethnicity don’t matter. Sure, most of the major conflicts of our time center on those three things, but the United States is different. The U.S. is a free society, built upon the idea that humans of all backgrounds and creeds can come together and build their own destinies.

Yet there are limits to the notion that “diversity is our strength.” In the first place, it is not entirely clear that the U.S. always has been what the ACLU makes it out to be. As the Rockford Institute’s Paul Gottfried notes, “Up until well into the twentieth century, wide popular support and even Supreme Court decisions favored the view that the U.S. was a Western Christian country” (or perhaps “Judeo-Christian”) in character and culture.

In the second place, culture, religion and ethnicity often are quite divisive, even in a “free society.” As immigrants from Southeast Asia pour in, Asian-Americans, once thought among the most well-integrated of minorities, are slowly beginning to form their own spaces in society. Counter-assimilative forces are even more apparent when language is a factor. The sheer number of Spanish-speaking Mexicans flocking (legally or otherwise) to the Southwestern United States—plus their close proximity with Mexico—makes that group particularly difficult to absorb. The potential this creates for ethnic tension should not be underestimated. One need only look to our bilingual northern neighbor, where Francophone Québec functions largely apart from Anglophone Canada and has on occasion sought full independence. Keep in mind that, language aside, British and French Canada appear to have much in common: both are European and Christian and their peoples are, at least at a glance, difficult to tell apart.

At least, they were European and Christian. Canada, like the U.S., has begun to witness a massive surge in levels of Third World immigration and, except for language, is not even trying to assimilate its newcomers (if they did try, they would fail due to numbers alone). It should also be pointed out that after several decades of trenchant secularization, Canada—especially Québec—boasts a severely depressed birthrate and distressingly high abortion and suicide rates.

Americans should not ignore the message here, as we are also relinquishing enough of our identity to endanger our survival as a coherent nation. For the sake of ourselves and our posterity, let us decide who we are and shape our policies accordingly.

By advocating that we codify “our identity” and “who we are” in his last Hurricane editorial, Nicholas G. Moses made the only truly Un-American suggestion I can imagine and committed a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in his rationale. I reply that freedom of belief is what makes America “a coherent nation.” Mose’s correlation of “distressingly high abortion and suicide rates” and “decades of trenchant secularization” in Quebec without making any causal connection between the two unquantified facts exhibits patently fallacious reasoning.

America may be a historically Western Christian nation in demography, but regardless of opinion, it is a liberal democracy that honors freedom of belief. The government can make and enforce laws, force me to pay my taxes, and ban gay marriage if it wants but it can never rightfully tell me that I have to approve of its policies and the beliefs behind those policies, try to involuntarily "assimilate" me or any “Spanish-speaking Mexicans,” or dictate what I believe and what my values are.

The first amendment is clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Jefferson made it clear in 1802 that the purpose of the amendment was to build "a wall of separation between church and State." America is no theocratic or communist state that dictates values and beliefs and tells people “who they are” and it never will be as long as I am an American citizen.

Here's what I have as a rebuttal to his argument. I want to make sure it's PERFECT before I send it. Any suggestions, fellow FReepers?

Dear Sir:

Congratulations; you have the privilege of being the first person to e-mail me with regards to an editorial I published. (Not that there's anything special about that.) In all seriousness, though, I appreciate that you took the time to read my column and respond.

I will have to concede a point to you about the post hoc fallacy. I scanned over my article a number of times before sending it in but did not catch the logical gaffe. Had I caught it, I probably would simply have eliminated the point altogether, as space would not have permitted me to qualify it. Freed of length constrictions, however, please allow me to elucidate.

Let me explain my line of thought. My presumption is that a loss of religious identity leads to a weakening of the family, and that the lack of a strong family base can lead to personal instability (which might drive one to suicide) or illegitimate pregnancies (which are often terminated).

Now, a brief breakdown of the facts. Here you will find the most recent statistics for worldwide suicide rates: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/. Most of the countries with double-digit rates (for men; women almost always have lower suicide rates) are either: a) post-Communist Eastern Bloc countries, or b) Western [post-]Christian countries. Fertility rates can be found here: http://www.bartleby.com/151/fields/30.html and divorce rates here: http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml. Again, the countries with the highest rates include the majority of post-Communist and Western countries.

And here is a table for worldwide religious attendance (measured as the percentage of a country's population that regularly attends religious services): http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm (Ireland's has declined since that data was collected, and is now around 50%). Once more, note that the countries toward the bottom of the list tend to be modern, Western, or post-Communist. (My belief is that this owes to the fallout of communism (which made states officially atheist and in many cases outlawed or severely restricted religious practices) in the Eastern Bloc and prosperity [ergo, materialism] in the Western world that takes people's minds off the "next world," so to speak.)

As for abortion rates, they can be high or low in both the developed world and the undeveloped world; however, they are highest in post-Communist Eastern Europe (and lowest in Western Europe): http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2504499.html. In Canada in 2000, 32.2 pregnancies were terminated for every 100 live births. http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/states96.htm shows abortion statistics for the United States over the course of several decades; http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml shows abortion statistics for Canada over the course of several decades.

Since I placed special emphasis on Québec, I'll give that province--or, should I say, that nation*--its own section. Until the Quiet Revolution in the 1960's, the Roman Catholic Church was a--nay, THE--powerful force in Québécois life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution). Not anymore, and at presence church attendance in Québec is low, no more than 20% (http://www.ccsb.ca/horizon/ccsb.ca-ReligionontheRise.htm). Québec's divorce rate is 47.6%, much higher than Canada's average (http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml). Its birthrate in 2002 was 1.44 (http://www.tomifobia.com/black/quebec_nonbreeders.shtml). Its abortion rate in 2000 was 43.2 pregnancies terminated per 100 live births (http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml). Finally, its suicide rate from1999-2001 was 30.7 males and 7.7 females per 100,000 population (http://mediresource.sympatico.ca/health_news_detail.asp?channel_id=148&menu_item_id=&news_id=4008).

My conclusion: lower religious adherence is closely tied to less stable marriages, lower fertility rates, and higher abortion and suicide rates. Abortion rates seem to be tied as much to class issues as it is to religious adherence; note that church attendance in Western Europe is far lower than in North America, but the abortion rate is much lower, as well--but Western European nations tend to have very low rates of poverty.

Of course, the trendline is somewhat erratic (probably because it does not account for, among other things, economic and cultural nuances); for example, Canada has a lower rate of church attendance than the U.S. but a somewhat lower rate of divorce. Also, some countries, like Argentina, have lower rates of religious attendance than the U.S. but have much less worrisome (if you're me) statistics on divorce/fertility/abortion/suicide; however, keep in mind that it is religious ADHERENCE, not ATTENDANCE, that counts. Argentina is a much less secular society than the United States in that religion tends to play a more central role in civic life.

*Do not, as many do, make the mistake of equating the words "state" and "nation." "State" is a technical term referring to a politically sovereign, self-governing entity. A "nation" is an abstract concept that refers to the people. Québec is not an independent state; however, the Francophone Québécois have a tendency (which fluctuates slightly depending on the state of the economy) to see themselves as a separate nation from British Canada.

Now... as for the rest of your argument, I am somewhat befuddled. You say the Constitution is clear regarding freedom of conscience and expression yet call me "un-American" for expressing my opinion that the Americans should give some thought about whom they wish to let join them in their society. What, may I ask, is "un-American" about expressing my opinion?

Or perhaps you regard my SUGGESTION as un-American. In that case, I would ask you to please take a closer look at precisely what I suggested. I suggested several things: 1. that it is a burden and eventually a danger to the survival of a society to have several adjacent "factions" who do not share a common language and, at least to some degree, creed, 2. that it is difficult to assimilate a massive number of immigrants from a single location, and 3. that our immigration policy ought to address these realities. This is not at all unprecedented in American history; the immigration restrictions and assimilative measures brought about in the 1920's clearly show that, as does the fact that the United States was perfectly willing to bar avowed Nazis and Communists entry during World War II and the Cold War. But nowhere did I suggest, as you seem to think I did, that we ought to outlaw certain religions.

In conclusion, it would be remiss not to point out that a state with a religious framework for its laws and civic creeds is not neccesarily a theocracy. A theocratic government is one in which the statesman is by definition also a clergyman. The Frankish kings were crowned by clergymen and had a relationship with the Church (capital "C" intended) that made it the "official" spiritual body of the state, but even in that case the Church and the state were ALLIED, not one and the same. Monarchs were not clergy (except in the Papal States). Moreover, up until the 1960's, the courts never had a problem with religious expressions in public situations (i.e., mandatory prayer in public schools), yet surely you would not argue that America was founded as a theocracy. (Let it also be noted that the framers of our Constitution seemed to have no problem with Connecticut having a state Church until the early 19th century.) You commit a strawman fallacy of logic.

Mose’s correlation of “distressingly high abortion and suicide rates” and “decades of trenchant secularization” in Quebec without making any causal connection between the two unquantified facts exhibits patently fallacious reasoning.

Alrighty, he's starting off by playing dirty here - he's trying to get you to defend a statement you didn't make, and you're accomodating him for the most part.

What did you actually write? "...after several decades of trenchant secularization, Canada—especially Québec—boasts a severely depressed birthrate and distressingly high abortion and suicide rates", which is undeniably true.

But you haven't claimed causation yet, merely correlation. It's not a post hoc fallacy if you simply point out that A preceded B - if I say "After Mary turned out the lights, she went to bed", am I claiming that turning out the lights caused Mary to go to bed? Of course not - I'm merely pointing out that turning out the lights preceded going to bed. So why defend the notion of causation? Simply marshal the facts you've assembled, and invite him to come up with a coherent explantion for them. "I haven't claimed that A causes B," you say - "You simply imagined that. How rude of you to put words in my mouth like that. But since you brought it up, have a look at all this stuff, and see if you can explain why there appears to be such a strong correlation between A and B." Now you've responded by playing dirty yourself, by shifting the burden of proof and putting him on the defensive - now he has to do more than simply sit back and poke holes in your logic, he has to come up with a plausible alternate explanation of the facts that he can defend. Which you can then take and pick apart for logical flaws, if he presents one - don't be surprised if he declines to accept your challenge, in which case you win by virtue of your opponent ceding the field. Anyway, don't play defense - play offense ;)

That's the fallacy business. You should also probably address this nonsense about dictating values. Guess what? All laws that exist everywhere dictate what that society's values are. We value life, so we prohibit murder. We value ownership, so we prohibit theft. And so forth. It's trivially true that nobody can make him "believe" in those things, or "believe" that those values are right and proper, but societies everywhere should, can, and do punish transgressors who fail to respect societal values. That's what states are for, why they exist in the first place, to enforce respect for common values, and no amount of childish whining that "You can't make me believe in 'X'!" will change that fact - you don't have to believe that murder is wrong in this society, but if you fail to act as though you do, society has the absolute right to punish you for failing to adhere to that particular moral value, whether you "believe" it or not.

Thank you for all your help. Here is what I have come up with:

Dear sir:

I appreciate that you took the time to read my column and respond.

I would advise that your claim to have spotted fallacious reasoning in my dissertation simply does not hold. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is Latin for "with this, therefore because of this." The quote you took issue with was: "...after several decades of trenchant secularization, Canada—especially Québec—boasts a severely depressed birthrate and distressingly high abortion and suicide rates." I imply here a correlation, but I do not claim causation. It is a matter of indisputable fact that religion plays a much smaller role in Canada and Québec than it did forty years ago, and that fertility rates have dropped and abortion and suicide rates have increased markedly since that time.

But since you brought up the issue, I have attached a short discourse I wrote analyzing the correlation between secularism and rates of fertility, divorce, abortion, and suicide (not only in Canada, but in the entire world). I would be more than happy to hear your explanation of why there seems to be such a strong correlation.

You can say that government has no right to "dictate what [you] believe and what [your] values are." I'm sorry, but the purpose of law in the first place is to dictate what society's values are. Since we value life, murder is outlawed. Since we value property, theft is outlawed. No one can make you believe that murder or theft are wrong, but if you wish to live in this society without being punished, you would do well to act like you subscribe to its moral values. This is the whole reason why states and rulers exist at all.

A few final thoughts. What I suggested was a) that it is a burden and eventually a danger to the survival of a society to have several adjacent "factions" who do not share common language, aspirations, and heritage (that, after all, is what a nation is; just look at the Jews for an example of a nation without borders, and look at the Kosovars and Africans for an example of the problems that can arise when nations exist across state borders), b) that it is difficult to assimilate a massive number of immigrants from a single location, and c) that our immigration policy ought to address these realities. Nowhere did I ever say that we ought to outlaw certain religions. But for the record, a state with a religious framework for its laws and civic creeds is not neccesarily a "theocracy," and the "wall of separation of Church and state" did not keep Connecticut from having a state Church for several decades after it ratified the U.S. Constitution.

Now if you would like to address the points I have made (either in my editorial or in this e-mail), by all means do so. Otherwise, have a nice day.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.