Is Evangelical Morality Still Acceptable in America?

The Atlantic ^ | 07/17/2014 | Alan Noble

[Salvation]

Another source: Pew: The Evangelical Hispanic vote went 50-39 in favor of Obama in 2012.

Hispanic Protestants in general went 55-33 for Obama in 2012.

[af_vet_1981]

After that we were hit with the oil embargo and our economy hasn't been the same since.

History shows the people disobeyed the almost 2000 year consistent apostolic teaching against using pharmakea to prevent pregnancy, which like abortion, is a mortal sin.

I realize this is a complex equation and a proper study is needed. For example, the more religious a family, the higher the birthrate be they Moslem, Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish. Orthodox Jews are destined, should our LORD tarry, to become a majority of Jews in this country because they believe the commandment of the LORD to be fruitful and multiply.
1. Between 1800 and 1920, the birth rate among native-born white (read: Protestant) women declined from 7.04 to 3.13, while Catholic families were still averaging 6.6. While upstanding, Anglo-Saxon Protestant women were buying condoms made from sheep intestines, douching with dubious solutions like “Cullen’s Female Specific,” and having furtive abortions, those Catholic babes in arms were growing up into a veritable papist army. By the turn of the century they represented 13 percent of the national population. Evangelical activists’ concern over rising Catholic census numbers was one factor in the cocktail of Victorian moralism and anxiety about sexuality that motivated states and the federal government to ban the dissemination of information about birth control and the sale of contraception devices, and to stiffen anti-abortion laws in the late 19th century. The laws were partly intended to prevent white Protestant women from shirking their duty as mothers of the fittest race. But ethnic prejudice fueled the other side of the birth control debate, too. Liberals in the eugenics movement applauded the potential of modern birth control and sterilization to purify humanity of “criminality” and “feeblemindedness,” traits that they usually found most often among poor Catholics and people of color. A few decades later, Margaret Sanger and her colleagues maneuvered to win Protestant support—or at least silence their opposition—by capitalizing on anti-Catholic sentiment and casting Rome as the enemy of women, free thought, and progress. (She aimed her invective at the Vatican, not Catholic women themselves, for whom she had deep sympathy.) In 1921, she denounced Rome as “a dictatorship of celibates” and urged “all who resent this sinister Church Control of life and conduct … [to] choose between Church Control or Birth Control.” After the Anglican Communion moderated its position on contraception in 1930, the rest of liberal Protestantism soon fell into line. Initially evangelicals and fundamentalists fulminated against birth control, but soon their protests quieted.
2. 1948 stats showed 2.74 Catholic, 2.19 Protestant
3. Total Fertility Rate by Religion, 2003 shows Muslims with the highest at 2.84, Catholics at 2.75/2.11 depending on ethnicity, and Protestants at 2.13/2.01/1.84 depending on ethnicity/conservative/liberal view
4. In America, mainline Protestant denominations have European birthrate levels and are aging rapidly. However, fundamentalist Protestants have a birthrate around 2.5 and Mormons around 2.7. Orthodox Jews have about four children per family on average. The U.S. Catholic birthrate is the same as the overall American birthrate; still, there are distinctions. Hispanic Catholics have a high birthrate of 3.0, but non-Hispanic white Catholics have a birthrate of merely 1.8. Most of the non-Hispanic white Catholics who were surveyed told pollsters that they accept contraception and otherwise dissent from Church doctrine.

[ealgeone]

If this is another attempt to trash protestants, suggest you read and cite the other parts of the article as well.

Today, 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women say they have used some form of contraception, as have the vast majority of evangelicals. A recent poll revealed that 58 percent of American Catholics approve of forcing private insurers to cover birth control. (Only among white evangelicals,(read...non-catholic) with their sensitivity about “religious freedom” and newfound zest for “quiverfulls” of children, did a majority disapprove of the law.)

If you want to go down this road, which I don't think you do... we can cite 2008 election voting patterns which shows that 54% of catholics voted for obama, abortion, diversity, etc compared to the 54% of protestants who voted for McCain and pro-life. The number is even more pronounced among white evangelicals (read...protestant) with 74% voting for McCain and pro-life.

In 2012 catholics did better with 50% voting for Obama and the party of abortion.

In 1992 and 1996 catholics again supported Bill Clinton and the party of abortion by 44% and 53% respectively.

In 1976 Catholics supported Carter with 54% of their vote.

In 1960 and 1964 Catholics overwhelmingly supported Kennedy and Johnson with 78% and 76% of their vote. Sadly in 1964, 55% of Protestatns supported Johnson as well.

We can also look at congressional representation as well to see where catholics vote. Look at the northeast...heavily catholic...heavy liberal.

look at the south...heavy conservative...heavy protestant.

If you were attempting to paint Catholics as the defenders of the unborn and following the Word when it comes to this social issue, and probably others, has failed. Instead it shows that the average Catholic, based on these election patterns is far more liberal in their political position that protestants.

[af_vet_1981]

If you were attempting to paint Catholics as the defenders of the unborn and following the Word when it comes to this social issue, and probably others, has failed. Instead it shows that the average Catholic, based on these election patterns is far more liberal in their political position that protestants.

I read your political response and am not persuaded. Apostolic teaching on contraception and abortion are what is important. Using pharmakea to avoid a pregnancy, procuring an abortion, or teaching (for those who teach) others that is is a matter of conscience to do so, is committing a grave sin. Catholic doctrine has always taught against these sins. Protestants did as well, until the Anglicans caved and the other denominations followed. I don't know of a single non Catholic denomination or sect that teaches using pharmakea to avoid pregnancy is a sin. Do you ?

I doubt the statistic of 98% of Catholics if use of pharmakea to avoid pregnancy. That statistic is probably including the natural cycle of a woman's fertility (rhythm method, natural famliy planning) which is not forbidden, and so the number is skewed. I don't doubt that it is large; wheat and tares; disobedient sons and daughters who do not sow to the Spirit, but to the flesh.

[af_vet_1981]

In any event, the largely Protestant Christian nation formed here is waning and almost spent. It bears an eerie resemblance to the western half if the Roman Empire. It is headed for an Hispanic majority and we can hope it will be a Christian majority but Christians are so fractured and divided, not to mention carnal, that our country is probably in permanent decline.

[ealgeone]

I read your political response and am not persuaded. Apostolic teaching on contraception and abortion are what is important. Using pharmakea to avoid a pregnancy, procuring an abortion, or teaching (for those who teach) others that is is a matter of conscience to do so, is committing a grave sin. Catholic doctrine has always taught against these sins.

And yet, somehow, with all of this teaching you cite, the majority of catholics have supported liberal candidates for the presidency, the senate, and the congress. In essense, they are voting for the very thing you claim the RCC teaches against. Somehow the message isn't getting through.

I have you voting patterns in presidential elections showing voting by catholic and protestant groups and you say you're not persuaded. It doesn't matter if you are or are not presuaded. Those are the breakdowns.

Obviously the message isn't getting through in the RCC. But if you're preaching the social gospel and not the gospel this could be a contributing factor. Do priest stand before the congregation and actually preach from the Bible on these topics....or are they citing the catechism or some other man-made idea like, say, the rosary?

In the classes I teach I give clear cut messages on these social issues and what the Bible has to say about them.

Then, in a huge since of irony, you go on to dispute the paragraph that wasn't flattering to catholics, from the very article you cite to trash protestants.

Me thinks you speak from both sides of your mouth. Who knows...maybe you voted for Obama and Clinton.

[af_vet_1981]

In the classes I teach I give clear cut messages on these social issues and what the Bible has to say about them.

Do you teach that all contraception using pharmakea is a sin, and that every abortion is a sin ?

there are aspects of the Gospel that are social; read and obey them.

I think Catholics who already disobey the Catechism are much more likely to separate themselves from the Church and vote for a secular liberal government; you have 56% of Catholics voting for the born again southern baptist in 1976, and about a 50/50 split in 2012 between Obama and a Mormon; that is a significant bloc of Catholics voting pro life. you can't even get the self identified republicans on FR to consistently vote republican; it's like herding cats; rebellion breeds rebels and we all suffer. Politics is a losing gospel; the nation is in serious, probably irreversible, spiritual decline as shown by the declining birth rate, along with other evidence (pornography, which is adultery or fornication, idolatry of mammon seeking material wealth, ordination of women, homosexual ascendancy, contraception, abortion).

[ealgeone]

I think Catholics who already disobey the Catechism are much more likely to separate themselves from the Church and vote for a secular liberal government; you have 56% of Catholics voting for the born again southern baptist in 1976,

Give Carter's latest positions I'd either question his sincerity or it's possible he is not walking the walk any longer. In either case his positions do not line up with Scripture.

Politics is a losing gospel; the nation is in serious, probably irreversible, spiritual decline as shown by the declining birth rate, along with other evidence (pornography, which is adultery or fornication, idolatry of mammon seeking material wealth, ordination of women, homosexual ascendancy, contraception, abortion).

On this I we agree. I really believe we need another Great Awakening/Day of Pentecost type revival. Bold Biblical teaching as Peter and Paul taught. True repenteance and reliance on God and the sacrifice Christ made on the Cross for us.

[ReformationFan]

Speaking as an Evangelical Protestant myself, I’m more concerned if my morality is acceptable to God.

[cloudmountain]

As I’ve posted before on threads like this, you can be a church or you can be a liberal social club, but you can’t be both. Jonathan Rauch, however, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

I agree with your statement about being either a church or a liberal social club.

I hadn't ever heard of Jonathon Rauch. My reading is limited to Georgette Heyer, some Free Republic and some Fox News. That's a rather narrow scope but I had to do a TON of reading to get that reading of mine down to stuff I trusted and liked--though I love Heyer's regency romances....pure 100% chick books.

[cloudmountain]

Another source: Pew: The Evangelical Hispanic vote went 50-39 in favor of Obama in 2012.
Hispanic Protestants in general went 55-33 for Obama in 2012.

Yep, promise them the world and give them nothing.

The Hispanics will still vote Democrat because

*they are abysmally uninformed

*and are FINE with being ignorant.

*Also they will vote Democrat IF they are legal,

*IF they can read,

*IF they bother to register to vote,

*IF they bother to vote and

*IF they have the time that day.

They "learn" from their MAYBE soon-to-be American brethren.

They COULD vote absentee, like I always do, but that would require some reading and checking off of boxes. WAY too much work.

[tbw2]

At my employer, on the corporate social networking site, a woman married for 20 years said her husband had come out. She was seeking recommendations and support.
One recommended divorce, which she said she considered.
One person recommended a support group for straight partners of gay spouses.
Several recommended an open marriage, so they could stay “married” while he could be who he really was.
I suggested that since he’d been married 20 years and they still had children at home, that he get counseling so that he could remain faithful to his wife and maintain the family he’d created. But open marriage was unacceptable as adultery, and as a disease risk to her. Barring that family stabilizing attempt, THEN get a divorce.
I was deemed the bigoted one.