Posted on 12/24/2006 4:11:13 AM PST by goldstategop
Suppose for a moment that the birth in Bethlehem that Christians celebrate this week never happened --that it is, as the secularists would have it, mere mumbo jumbo, superstition, a myth. In other words, consider it not as an event but as a narrative. You want to launch a big new global movement from scratch. So what do you use? The birth of a child.
If Christianity is just a myth, then it is, so to speak, an immaculately conceived one. On the one hand, what could be more powerless than a newborn babe? On the other, without a newborn babe, man is ultimately powerless. For, without new life, there can be no civilization, no society, no nothing.
"The world has collapsed," announces a BBC newsman in a new movie. "Only Britain soldiers on." Europe in 1940? No, 2027. Adapted from P.D. James' dystopian novel, Children Of Men is set on a planet in which humanity is barren. That's to say, it can no longer reproduce. And you'd be amazed at how much else collapses with the fertility rate.
You might have a hard time finding ''Children Of Men'' at your local multiplex. It's a more pertinent Christmas movie this holiday season than ''Bad Santa 3'' or ''The Santa Clause 8,'' but Universal seems to have got cold feet and all but killed the picture. In an enthusiastic review in Seattle Weekly, J. Hoberman observed: "Universal may have deemed 'Children' too grim for Christmas, but it is premised on a reverence for life that some might term religious." Granted, he's in the godless precincts of Seattle, that last bit of the sentence -- "some might" -- seems a tad qualified. Obviously, Christianity has a "reverence for life." So too does Judaism: all that begetting the eyes glaze over at in the Old Testament, going right back to God's injunction to be fruitful and multiply.
Christmas is a good time not just for Christians to ponder the central proposition of their faith -- the baby in the manger -- but for post-Christian secularists to ponder the central proposition of theirs: that religion is a lot of goofy voodoo nonsense and that any truly rational person will give it the bum's rush. The problem with this view is that "rationalism" is looking less and less rational with each passing year. Here are three headlines from the last couple of weeks:
• • "Mohammed Overtakes George In List Of Most Popular Names" (Daily Telegraph, London)
• • "Japan's Population 'Set To Plummet' " (BBC News)
• • "Islam Thrives As Russia's Population Falls" (Toronto Star)
By comparison with America, those three societies are very secular. Indeed, Russia spent three-quarters of a century under the most militantly secularist regime of all: Under Communism, the state was itself a religion, but, alas, only an ersatz one, a present-tense chimera. As a result, Russians more or less gave up begetting: Slavs are in steep population decline, and, on present trends, Russia will be majority Muslim by 2050. And the Russian army will be majority Muslim by 2015. In western Europe, societal suicide isn't quite so advanced, but the symbolism is still poignant: "George" isn't just the name of America's reviled cowboy president, but of England's patron saint; the national flag is the Cross of St. George, under which Englishmen sallied forth to smite the Mohammedans in those long-ago Crusades. Now the Mohammedans have managed to smite the Georgians big time, not by conquest but simply by outbreeding. Mohammed is also the most popular boy's name in Brussels, Amsterdam and other Continental cities.
But forget Islam: In Europe, they're inheriting by default. There are no Muslims or any other significant group of immigrants in Japan and yet the Japanese are engaging in a remorseless auto-genocide. Already in net population decline and the most geriatric society on earth, their descent down the death spiral is only going to accelerate. As the BBC reported, "The imbalance is threatening future economic growth and raising fears over whether the government will be able to fund pensions. But Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki said: 'It's impossible for the pension system to collapse due to the declining birth rate because we will adjust the amount of money put into it.' "
Oh, OK then. But, just as a matter of interest, when you "adjust" the amount of money you put into the pension system, whose pockets are you going to "adjust" it out of? Japanese and European societies are trying to secure the future on upside-down family trees in which four grandparents have one grandchild. No matter how frantically you "adjust," that's unsustainable.
What's the answer? Cloning? Artificial intelligence? Well, here's another story you may have missed in recent days. Sir David King, the British government's chief scientific adviser, has turned in a bunch of reports on issues likely to arise in the next 50 years. Among them is a study on "robot rights." In a nutshell, if robots advance to some form of consciousness, they'd be entitled to welfare. The state would be obliged to provide "robo-healthcare," as the report puts it, plus no doubt robo-pensions and all the rest.
These are four stories you may not even have seen, what with all the really important stuff happening in the world, like Miss USA not being fired by Donald Trump, and Matt Damon dissing Dick Cheney. I'm a big 24/7 demographics bore, as readers of my new doomsday book will know, but even I'm a little taken aback at the way its thesis is confirmed every day by some item from some part of the map. These stories are all one story, the biggest story of our time: the self-extinction of most of the developed world.
The Virgin Mary's pregnancy is not the only one in the Gospels. There's another that prefigures it, in Luke 1:13:
"But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John."
Zacharias is surprised to discover his impending fatherhood -- "for I am an old man and my wife well stricken in years." If you read Luke, the virgin birth seems a logical extension of the earlier miracle -- the pregnancy of Mary's elderly cousin. For Matthew, Jesus' birth is the miracle. Luke, a physician, leaves you with the impression that all birth -- all life -- is to a degree miraculous and God-given, if only because without it there can be no world. The obligation to have children may be a lot of repressive theocratic hooey, but it's less irrational than the secular self-absorption of a barren Russia, Japan and Europe. And, if Christianity is a fairy tale, it's a perfectly constructed one, beginning with the decision to establish Christ's divinity in the miracle of His birth: As the song says, "And man will live forevermore because of Christmas Day."
Preterist bump...
In today's urbanised society, with men and women both working outside home, high competition for work, long working hours and high education levels and, therefore, high lifestyle expectations no room for many children in a family.
The religion issue has nothing to do with the fertility rate.
"This mitigates against large families since women can no longer afford to stay home and leave one bread winner to support a big brood. This, combined with the high cost of housing in Europe makes it virtually impossible to buy a home large enough for more than one child families."
It's still possible to raise a large brood here in the U.S. and perhaps Canada with one bread winner. That might be one reason why our birthrate has not dropped like a stone as it has in Europe. In Europe, there's also the issue of endemic unemployment due to socialism. That has a wrenching effect on people's willingness to have children.
Much as we like to focus on the "irresponsible" things that a small percentage of people do, I believe that most folks do try to act rationally. In Europe, a person who is looking at having children can't avoid looking at the future that their children are going to inherit. If those prospects appear bleak, well then guess what those folks are likely to decide?
As for young Europeans emmigrating to the U.S. and Canada, my own opinion is that we should not only welcome them with open arms, we should actively encourage them to move here and have lots of kids.
I believe that Europe is pretty much a lost cause at this point. They've gone beyond the tipping point demographically. At a certain point, our own interests as a nation and a culture have to become paramount.
"Agreed. They're also adopting children that others reject. They are the west's demographic lock box. (With apologies to Al Gore)"
Yes, and we really need to start encouraging more of those adoptions PDQ. I find it amazing that red China, Russia and other communist/socialist countries are dumb enough to allow us to import their children. That won't continue forever.
The first part of the quote I'd seen elsewhere. I didn't think it was entirely accurate so I added the second part: "and victors study demographics."
Preterist?
Right. Sure.
If true, will you please go ahead and take dominion of the Earth soon?
Thanks in advance!
"Twenty-somethings and thirty-something, quit messin' around. Get married. And then --- hey! You know what to do."
Given that the broad social trends seem to be toward cohabitation rather than marriage, perhaps it might be more effective to encourage those who already do "get it" to do what's necessary to have larger families.
The future I see here is one of polarization. On our side of the divide it will be the large Christian families that thrive. Interestingly, America will probably be a much more Mormon country in the future. That and Catholic and Evangelical.
The lukewarm amongst us are self-selecting themselves out of the gene pool. They and their potential progeny won't be around to matter in 50 or so years.
"So nice to see conservative films making it to screen."
Yeah it is, isn't it?
Not to worry so much about the lack of theatrical venues. That's to be expected given the political bias of the industry in question. More money is made from the DVD release on most films anyway. The best thing to do is to spread the word in anticipation of the DVD release.
"It's not just the fault of the Democrats. Many Republicans want cheap labor for their rich friends and supporters. I'm sure many of the Bush family's wealthy friends need immigrant labor for jobs they don't want to do - mowing the lawn, cleaning the pool, taking care of their kids, etc."
Nice to see a fellow conservative Democrat posting FR. Congratulations! You've joined a select group of, oh, about ten people I reckon. If that many.
As for immigration, both parties are up to their armpits on this one.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
You are wrong. Assuming 6.5 billion people, that works out to 3.25 billion acres or 5,078,125 square miles. The US has an area of 3,537,441 square miles.
Without immigration, illegal and legal, the US birth rate would resemble Europe's. The annual arrival of 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants, coupled with 750,000 annual births to immigrant women, is the determinate factor— or three-fourths— of all U.S. population growth.
We have three kids and another on the way, with no plans of stopping. One of the most remarkable things we have found is that when you top three kids you become social pariahs. Even "white trash" glories in its superiority over you.
And housing: Forget it! You are taxed based on price per square foot, and even though you may be able to put together a house for an absurdly low cost per square foot, you will be taxed the same as the mansion down the street. The guy down the street may be a childless bachelor building a monument to his own greatness, but a large family is similarly punished.
I have posted this comment, many times, and I will repeat it:
The tribe with the most babies, wins...
I would encourage government intervention; mainly in the realm of income taxes...married couples with children, should receive, tax credits, substantially large enough to support a growing family...the credits should increase with each new born....the weight of income taxes, should fall on folks that refuse to participate in our society....
"Without immigration, illegal and legal, the US birth rate would resemble Europe's. The annual arrival of 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants, coupled with 750,000 annual births to immigrant women, is the determinate factor— or three-fourths— of all U.S. population growth."
Europe, even with immigration, is still not keeping up. Our indigenous birthrate is higher.
I view it as something of a semantic exercise to try to separate births to indigenous American citizens and births to immigrant American citizens. Virtually everyone posting this thread is the descendent of an immigrant.
"We have three kids and another on the way, with no plans of stopping. One of the most remarkable things we have found is that when you top three kids you become social pariahs. Even "white trash" glories in its superiority over you."
Sounds like you need to find some better quality people to be around. You aren't going to catch much of that kind of flak on FR. Actually, quite the opposite. So with that in mind, let me thank you for having as many as you can.
"And housing: Forget it! You are taxed based on price per square foot, and even though you may be able to put together a house for an absurdly low cost per square foot, you will be taxed the same as the mansion down the street. The guy down the street may be a childless bachelor building a monument to his own greatness, but a large family is similarly punished."
Amen. You've mentioned one of the reasons why I think our current tax structure is incredibly anti-child and anti-family. You can add to that a very paltry income tax exemption for dependents, and regressive sales taxes that penalize families for consuming "luxuries" such as food and clothing.
"I would encourage government intervention; mainly in the realm of income taxes...married couples with children, should receive, tax credits, substantially large enough to support a growing family...the credits should increase with each new born....the weight of income taxes, should fall on folks that refuse to participate in our society...."
I would encourage government to simply butt out and stop penalizing families.
From a semantical point of view, I think that tax deductions are better than tax credits. Also, reductions in property taxes should be on the table as well as an end to sales taxes on food, medical prescriptions, clothing items under a certain amount (say $50), and basic utilities.
Our current tax policy is much more interested in increasing the wealth of those at the absolute top of the economic heap than it is in providing a fair playing field for families.
The US fertility rate is 2.09, which is just about replacement level. It is immigration, legal and illegal, that makes the difference in terms of our annual population growth rate of .91%. compared to .35% in France, 1.15% in Ireland, .28% in the UK, .13% in Spain, and minus .02% in Germany.
I view it as something of a semantic exercise to try to separate births to indigenous American citizens and births to immigrant American citizens. Virtually everyone posting this thread is the descendent of an immigrant.
It is far from a semantic exercise if you understand the demographic consequences of immigration, legal and illegal, on the population of the US. Immigration by the numbers
By 2030, the Census bureau estimates that we will have 364 million Americans up from the current 300 million. In 1990, we had 248 million. We will have 400 million before 2050. Much of this can be attributed to our immigration policies and lack of control over our borders.
The foreign-born population of the United States is currently 33.1 million, equal to 11.5 percent of the U.S. population. Of this total, the Census Bureau estimates 8-9 million are illegal immigrants. Other estimates indicate a considerably higher number of illegal immigrants, e.g., the Bear-Sterns report estimates 20 million.
Approximately 1 million people receive permanent residency annually. In addition, the Census Bureau estimates a net increase of 500,000 illegal immigrants annually.
The present level of immigration is significantly higher than the average historical level of immigration. This flow may be attributed, in part, to the extraordinary broadening of U.S. immigration policy in 1965. Since 1970, more than 30 million legal and illegal immigrants have settled in the U.S., representing more than one-third of all people ever to come to America's shores.
Maybe it means that the grandparents will have to work til they drop.
The nativity has nothing "Judeo" about it.
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.