The "fertility gap"

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Arthur Brooks highlights what he calls a “fertility gap” between liberal and conservative Americans. He writes that conservative couples raise 41% more children than their liberal counterparts, and that the percentage increases annually.

It is true that political leanings are not hereditary, but I found it interesting that 80% of young people adopt the values—including liberal or conservative ones—of their parents.

Why the big gap? Some things are obvious. Homosexuals do not reproduce. Aborted babies never get to see the light of day. And both of these activist groups are central to the liberal coalition. But I suspect that the number may continue to increase as certain other dependable liberal voting blocs—Catholics and African-Americans—who, by the way, often are blessed with big families, realize that their moral values are rejected and belittled by the Democrat party.

I’m reminded of a “happiness poll” taken a few months ago that demonstrated that conservatives are also much happier than liberals. Only 28% of liberal Democrats say they are “extremely happy,” compared to 47% of conservative Republicans. As this column points out,

Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole.

Marriage and commitment to religion translate to happiness and larger families. It’s not mere coincidence. As we’ve read in Schaeffer’s book, the absence of faith in God—pure humanism—is inevitably going to be reflected in pessimism and despair. These are the kind of people who, in my opinion, selfishly do not want to share their lives with children (the DINKs-double income no kids) and then declare “Who would want to bring a child into this awful world?” Christians optimistically view the future positively because God has promised eternal life through faith in His son’s redeeming work. We view children as God’s blessing to us, a trust, and a responsibility.

Try to relate the above to the concepts of “personal peace” and “affluence” as values. Discuss also how the proposition of society being absolute reflects itself in attitudes toward marriage and family.

Film and photo--honest record or deception?

A few years ago, I took a course at UW-Green Bay called “German Cinema.” Many of the films we viewed in that class are the same ones I use in my upper-level German classes in high school. You may not necessarily think that a class on movies would be that challenging. After all, our discussions are normally pretty shallow (perhaps reflective of our choices in cinema), as in “Did you see Talladega Nights? Yeah, it was hilarious! I thought it was stupid”…or awesome…and so on. Seldom, if ever, do we discuss camera angles and scene selection, character development, motif and theme. A university class on film treats a movie as a work both of literature and of visual art. I hope that in German class we can do the same thing when we watch “Beyond Silence” and “Run, Lola, Run.”

Last week I saw Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center. The director is getting some pretty good reviews, partially, I believe, because he keeps the film relatively politics-free. He simply tells the story of heroism and survival, of sacrifice and commitment of human beings toward one another. Some reviewers like the movie, but complain that we never see the enemy. Unlike United 93, when courageous passengers overcame the hijackers who commandeered their plane, all we see of the attack on the World Trade Center is an ominous shadow of a jet and a horrific explosion. As far as stories of courage and heroism go, the policemen who were rescued really didn’t save anyone. They went into the first tower and were heading for the elevator when the building started to collapse. In retrospect, we know that they were risking their lives in order to rescue others, but no one at the time could have known that the collapse was imminent, or they would not have gone in. I think one of the most striking images in the film (no, not Jesus coming with water) was toward the end, when Stone showed subway cars and ferries running…without passengers. Coupled with all of the “missing” posters on the hospital wall, it was a stirring reminder of the victims, who were more than just casualty counts, but real, special, beloved sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.

During the past week, we also saw a ceasefire in the month-long conflict between Israel and the Iran-sponsored Shiite terrorist group known as Hezbollah. News reports and photographs of the conflict were decidedly anti-Israel. In fact, a photographer from Reuters news agency was fired for embellishing (that is to say, falsifying) his images with Photoshop. Some 900 pictures from this photo-“journalist” were removed from Reuters’ online archives because of their desire to distance themselves from this unethical man. But the damage has been done. How many people have formed their impression of right and wrong in this conflict because of the altered images they saw? Author Michelle Malkin has coined a word for such falsified pictures: fauxtos (Faux being the French word for “false” and is pronounced “fo”). But liberal journalists have an anti-war, anti-American, and anti-Bush agenda, and, like Civil War photographer Matthew Brady, progressive era muckraker Jacob Riis, and even Vietnam-era videographers from the jungle, skilled cameramen embellish and stage pictures to suit their politics and purpose.

Chapter 10 of How Should We Then Live? explores the modern visual artist and the fragmented sense of reality they conveyed. Use the comment section to discuss your response. I’m hinting also at the next chapter’s discussion of manipulation as well, since visual images do such an effective job of affecting our emotions. Feel free to talk about photos or movies you’ve seen recently that seem to fit here.

Without hope - without God in the world

I was listening to Paul Harvey's commentary on the radio a few days ago. Mr. Harvey was describing a British theme park that had to cancel its plans for a "Muslim fun day" due to lack of interest. Curiosity got the better of me, so I found this link to the complete story. Apparently a couple had planned their wedding celebration at this particular amusement park and invited their family and friends, only to later discover that "Muslim fun day" was the same weekend. This would mean that strict dress codes for women would be in place, no music, smoking or drinking would be allowed, and men and women would not be allowed to ride the rides together.

Apparently, "Muslim fun day" has been cancelled due to lack of interest.

In contrast, the Christian Family Centre hosted its annual "Family Celebration Day" this past Saturday. Smiles and the joy of the Lord, praise in word and action of our Savior were to be found in abundance. Funny how when the Muslims of the Middle East have something to celebrate, they fire off machine guns. What a difference it makes to know and believe in Jesus' forgiveness and to have a right relationship with God through faith in a loving Savior, instead of the hopelessness of trying to appease a bloodthirsty "god" with acts of violence and murder.


In chapter 9 of How Should We then Live, Dr. Schaeffer describes more of the modern philosophers and their nihilistic despair. As you briefly note a summary statement that will help you remember a little something about each of them, be thinking about the vast difference between unbelief and faith and how this is reflected in despair or joy.