European Parliament Hears Warning of "Demographic Winter"

Zenit new agency reports that the Institue for Family Policies has presented an alarming report on Europe's future to the European Parliament. Here is a snippet:

"The data shows how the indicators of population, birthrate, marriages, family and home breakups have worsened over the last 28 years.

People who are older than 65 already outnumber by more than 6.5 million children under age 14, and every year fewer children are born.

Moreover, according to the IFP, there is "a collapse of marriages, with
increasingly fewer marriages and more broken ones -- one million divorces a year -- and with homes being emptied; two out of every three European homes have
no children.""

So-called private morality issues - sexual promiscuity, abortion, divorce etc. - turn out to have widespread social, political and economic implications:

"The president of the IFP affirmed that this "is causing evident effects, both in the economic as well as the social dimension."

He explained: "In the economic dimension, there is an increase in public spending because of the aging population, with an increase in investments dedicated to pensions and health expenses. Expenses that, added to the effects caused by the fall in public earnings due to the deficit of the birthrate can end by causing the reduction/elimination of social loans and, in the end, the bankruptcy of the welfare state.""

No matter how committed one is to the welfare state, one would nonetheless think that its looming bankruptcy would be a cause for concern.

"If the tendency is not halted, by 2050 the European population will have lost 27.3 million people, one out of every three persons will be older than 65 and only one out of every eight persons will be younger than 15, while the average age will be 46.7.

In regard to abortion, the IFP spoke of an "explosion" -- 28 million abortions in the EU since 1990, making it the first cause of mortality in Europe."

This is a picture of the culture of death in action. The most depressing thought that occurs to me reading this data is that the solution that will undoubtedly be brought forward is - you guessed it - more killing. Euthanasia for the lonely elderly who have no one to speak up for them will lengthen out the time it will take for the economy to crash and staving off the inevitable is apparently all the contemporary European mind is capable of engaging with any more.

Read it all here.

Italy Rebels Against Secularist Totalitarianism

The Catholic News Agency has a real "Man Bites Dog" story as ordinary Italians rebel against the top-down, totalitarian, secularism that the European Court of Human Rights is attempting to shove down their throats:

"A number of Italian officials have responded to the ruling by the European
Human Rights Court that ordered schools in Italy to remove crucifixes from the
classrooms by taking unprecedented measures to preserve the Christian symbol.

According to the Italian daily “Avvenire,” the mayor of Sezzadio, Pier
Luigi Arnera, has leveled a fine of 500 euros against anyone who removes a
crucifix from a public place.

Arnera explained that the displaying of the crucifix in “places other
than churches does not affect the dignity of anyone, because it is one of our
cultural references.” Likewise in the cities of Sassuolo and Trapani, officials have acquired dozens more crucifixes to display them in public schools.

In Montegrotto Terme, digital billboards that normally are used to inform
the public are now displaying the crucifix with the phrase, “We will not take it
down.”

It is about time. Doesn't a court have more pressing issues to deal with than attempting to eradicate every trace of Christian influence on European culture? Well, actually, for a certain kind of militant secularist there is no more important issue. Honor killings, trampling of free speech - trivial issues. But cleansing the public square of all traces of Christian culture: now there is a pressing issue.

Remember: they can only this to you if you choose to let them and if you let them they will strip away your culture, your past, your memory and your religion. They only want consumers with no culture and nothing that makes you able to resist manipulation through advertising and the media. They do not want Italians or Croats or Poles - only Europeans: one-dimensional material men, actually, last men.

The Economist on Falling Fertility

The influential British magazine, The Economist, has an interesting story on "Falling Fertility" in the latest issue. It is gratifying to (finally) see the mainstream media admit (after 50 years of saying the opposite) that there is no such thing as the population bomb, the world is not dangerously over-populated and the population explosion is a myth. So the story informs us (without a hint of irony or embarassment for doing a U-turn) that:

"Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate."

Now the absolutely astonishing thing here is that The Economist has just stated that world population is about to start falling and it follows this frightening scenario with a yawn! It seems that it has yet to dawn on The Economist that this fact implies shrinking economies, scarcity of resources, fewer workers to support growing populations of seniors, and probably a collapse of the world economy. What kinds of social chaos will follow shrinking population and the shrinking economic growth that always accompanies drops in population? The Economist is oblivious and seems not to be concerned. Every country or empire in history that has seen its population decline has fallen. Then again, every empire that has fallen in to sensuality, decadence and luxury like our's has also fallen. So I guess we just eat, drink and be merry until we run out of food.

The complacency about falling population rates seems to go hand in hand with the fanatical obsession with global warming. For the same article goes on to say:

"Nonsense, say Malthus’s heirs. All this misses the point: there are too many
people for the Earth’s fragile ecosystems. It is time to stop—and ideally
reverse—the population increase. To celebrate falling fertility is like
congratulating the captain of the Titanic on heading towards the iceberg more
slowly.

The Malthusians are right that the world’s population is still increasing and can do a lot more environmental damage before it peaks at just over 9 billion in 2050. That will certainly be the case if poor, fast-growing countries follow the economic trajectories of those in the rich world. The poorest Africans and Asians produce 0.1 tonnes of CO2 each a year, compared with 20 tonnes for each American. Growth is helping hundreds of millions to escape grinding poverty. But if the poor copy the pattern of wealth creation that made Europe and America rich, they will eat up as many resources as the Americans do, with grim consequences for the planet. What’s more, the parts of the world where populations are growing fastest are also those most vulnerable to climate change, and a rising population will exacerbate the consequences of global warming—water shortages, mass migration, declining food yields."

The Economist seems to be living in La La land on this issue. If anyone thinks that an irreversible fall in population is going to be a net benefit to the human race and to planet earth they are simply not able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Sure we need to think about climate change, but if we forget to think about the economy at the same time we will simply replace the cyanide with rat poison, we will simply exchange one global catastrophe for another. Pick your poison.

The world needs a stable population and a growing economy to support that population. We must remember that demographics (like climate) never stands still. Even if the population levels off it will still change for a few more generations as the percentage of seniors increases. The great danger is that the current trends will result, not in a stable population, but in a declining population coupled with a aging population and that is a recipe for economic disaster. We may get the population reduction so many of Malthus's pessimistic heirs long for all right - through mass starvation. If that is what the "Green" movement wants, then the "Green" movement is the enemy of mankind.

The population disaster won't wait until the climate change issue is resolved before it bites us. If we can't focus on two things at once we will inevitably leave one until it is too late. The Economist would do well to learn how to walk and chew gum at the same time - and quickly.

Why Missional Folks Don't Do Global Missions

Ed Stetzer discusses a question I have wondered about for a long time in this post. He says:

"I am writing this post from Taiwan. As I have been working with both local
leaders and American pastors, I have been struck by a few things and thought I
would share them with you.

First, I have traveled to Taiwan as a part of the Upstream Collective. The
reason is to accompany American pastors with a desire to be missional on a
cross-cultural, international encounter. (You can scroll down the last few posts
to learn what we are doing in Taiwan.)

Each person on the trip has the missional impulse as part of their DNA, and
they are here to consider how they might join God on his mission globally. While
I admire the faithfulness of these men, I must admit my surprise to see that
there is not a bigger interest in such global concerns among American pastors in
general. My fellow travelers seem to be rare of a breed in ministry.

Second, when I blogged about this on Sunday, two readers contacted my
hosts-- one working with the Presbyterian Church in America and one from the
Oversee Missionary Fellowship (OMF). Why? Well, according to one email, the
author explained, "I'm particularly interested in attracting young missional
church planters here."

Third, I was recently told by a pastor who called himself "missional"
that his church needed to pull back on their global mission support to help
their people "be missionaries right here."

All this provokes me to ask, "Why are so many missional Christians uninvolved in God's global mission?" As the missional conversation continues and deepens, what has occurred that has led to our blindness to the lost world around us?"

You can read his five reasons here. I am not sure he gets to the heart of it in his explanation. He basically says "Do both: social work and gospel preaching." But we already supposedly knew that; or did we? Am I the only one who notices a lot of Evangelicals doing the social work but neglecting to preach the Gospel of personal sin and salvation?

I wonder if the word "missional" has any value anymore. If it comes to refer to the prioritizing of social work over evangelization, then it will be just another name for theological liberalism. Can the two be held together? I don't really know at this point. Ask me in ten years.

Marriage and Children Increase Happiness

Once agains, after much toil and struggle social science confirms common sense and affirms what we already knew. A British study confirms that getting married and having children increases happiness. The more children, the more happiness, especially for women. But did we all know that?

Apparently not, according to Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi in the UK. He told an audience recently that old Europe is dying because people are too selfish to have children. He said:

"Parenthood involves massive sacrifice: of money, attention, time and emotional energy. Where today, in European culture with its consumerism and its
instant gratification ‘because you’re worth it’, in that culture, where will you
find space for the concept of sacrifice for the sake of generations not yet born?

Europe, at least the indigenous population of Europe, is dying, exactly as
Polybius said about ancient Greece in the third pre-Christian century. The century that is intellectually the closest to our own – the century of the sceptics and the epicureans and the cynics. Polybius wrote this:"The fact is, that the people of Hellas had entered upon the false path of ostentation, avarice and laziness, and were therefore becoming unwilling to marry, or if they did marry, to bring up the children born to them; the majority were only willing to bring up at most one or two."

That is why Greece died. That is where Europe is today."

You can read his entire speech, including his refutation of neo-Darwinism, if you click on this blog, the Hermeneutic of Continuity, and follow the link provided there.

It would appear that there is a happy convergence between having children and cultural flourishing - and a sad convergence between voluntary sterility and cultural decline. The command to be fruitful and multiply has never been rescinded and the culture of death is simply the product of unbelief and rebellion against the God of Creation. Happily, that is a rebellion that will never succeed. "He that sitteth in the heavens shall have them in derision." I can't wait util it is time to attend Handel's Messiah performed by Tafelmusik - our Christmas tradition. It is about the birth of a baby, you know - something God is highly in favor of - and the means by which salvation comes to this dying world.

The Drive to Abolish Childhood in the UK

From the UK, news that the government is imposing sex education on children as young as 7 years old. Gerald Warner, in his blog at the Daily Telegraph, has a trenchant analysis of the never-ending drive of the Labour government to abolish Christian morals and entrench an ethic that holds promiscuity as the highest good in the UK. He begins:

"The drive to abolish childhood continues apace. The government is ordering “sex education” to be imposed on primary school children from as young as five. The premature sexualisation of children and the encouragement of prurient interest in sexual matters at a tender age has already provoked increasing numbers of underage pregnancies (which the hypocrites enforcing this degenerate agenda claim it is designed to reduce), but still the fanatics persist in destroying what little remains of childhood innocence in this decadent age.

While anti-paedophile hysteria prevents a mother from pushing her own child on a swing in a playground without undergoing criminal record checks, the most widespread child abuse in this country is being perpetrated by the government."

This is indeed systematic, institutionalized child abuse. But he is just getting warmed up. He notes the anti-Christian arrogance:

"A further aggression against conscience is the imposition on faith schools of a duty to teach this rebarbative curriculum. The cosmetic concession is that they may do so within the “tenets of their faith”; but they must impart the factual information on contraception, homosexuality, etc. So, are Catholic schools supposed to say to pupils: “Contraception is a mortal sin. Now, here are the methods and how to employ them…” or “The Church condemns sodomy as one of the Four Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance, but in case you are interested, here’s the deal…”?"

And why is the government doing this? Warner calls a spade a spade:

"If that seems insane, it is in fact simply a cynical method of enforcing anti-Christian values on faith schools. It will be interesting, however, to see how the government sets about the enforcement of such teaching in the more robust environment of Muslim schools. Suddenly, it’s fatwah time for New Labour…

This New Labour government has been the most virulently anti-family, anti-Judaeo-Christian ethic administration in British history. It has unravelled the whole fabric of society with its anti-family crusade. In this it betrays its Frankfurt School of Marxism agenda, which it shares with the EU. Compulsory sex education was always a major plank in the Frankfurt School’s programme."

As if the government bureaucrats and their political masters had the guts to try and impose this on Muslim schools. They won't. They wouldn't dare. The hypocrisy is breath-taking. They are doing this to Christians just because they calculate that Christians can be bullied and won't fight back - even at the ballot box.

Well, it is time for parents to rise up against the arrogant, child-abusing, Marxists and throw them out. Past time. Way past time. Memo to the formerly free people of the UK: no state will allow you to have freedom; you have to take it. .

Conservative But Not Republican: A Growing Trend

The polling numbers give the lie to two wrong impressions that are widely shared among many conservatives and many Christians today, as far as US politics is concerned. And these misconceptions affect the way many Canadian Evangelicals position themselves with regard to conservatism.

Myth #1: Conservative Christians have sold their souls to the Republican Party and are just voting robots who never question party orthodoxy.

This myth is widely promulgated by left-wing Evangelicals who wish to portray conservative Christians as uneducated, unthinking, and easily led. It serves as a backdrop to the argument that moving left is just what anyone must do who wishes to have any kind of influence in the world today. So the myth justifies the left-ward turn of certain Evangelicals in search of political "relevance."

The main problem with the myth is that it is not true. What is true is that sometimes Evangelicals have chosen to be part of a mainline party with a serious shot at wininng even though much of what that party stands for is alien to true conservative and Christian concerns. This is a strategic decision, which everyone in pratical politics has to wrestle with at times, and it demonstrates political maturity rather than immaturity.

Rasmussen Reports polls show that the majority of conservatives in the US do not call themselves Republicans (56%). This means that some conservatives vote for conservative Democratic candidates and that many others are independents. In fact, most Independents in the US are not poised half-way between conservative and liberal positions; they are actually mostly conservatives. Some conservatives typically vote Republican but do not call themselves Republican because they perceive the Republican Party as not conservative enough or not the right kind of conservative.

Myth #2: The Republican Party must "broaden" itself (meaning become less conservative) in order to reach out to moderates and have any chance of winning elections in the future.

This is probably exactly the opposite of what it needs to do in order to win. Rasumssen Reports shows that only about 20% of American self-identify as Republicans, with just under 40% self-identifying as Democrat and 30% as Independents. Yet, many polls show conservatives making up a majority of the voting population in the US. Obama won by convincing many of the Independents that he was not an extreme liberal and the swift drop in his approval ratings (from 67% in February to 46% now) are what one would expect to see once the extremity of his liberal policies - especially with regard to the economy - become clear. Obama's election was also helped by the number of conservatives who stayed home, rather than vote for a Republican party that had revealed itself to be too liberal for their tastes, especially on fiscal matters.

Rasmussen Polls also show that 73% of Republicans think that the party leaders have lost touch with their base. It would appear that the party leadership needs to re-think the question of whether or not it wishes to be the vehicle for conservatives to make their voice heard in Washington or if it does not. If not, it will lose conservative support and become unelectable. The Tea Party movement is targeting liberals from both parties and willing to support conservatives of any party. The Republican leadership should be worried about this kind of grass roots activism, which is more interested in the substance of policy issues than party labels or the careers of party hacks. All the talk from the likes of Rod Dreher and David Frum about moving to the middle is political suicide. What the Republican Party needs to do is re-define the middle further rightward in order to be in touch with the electorate.

Sarah Palin undoubtedly saved John McCain from being utterly humiliated in the 2008 election. If McCain had picked Romney or Gulianni as his running mate he might have lost by the biggest margin in history because the conservative base was fed up with the Republicans acting like a Democratic-lite party. The respectability of the margin was due to Palin's energizing of the conservative base at the last minute and what the Republican Party has to come to grips with is that to alienate this base again is to hand the next election cycle to the Democrats.

If they won't stand for principle, (which they should), they should at least act in their own enlightened self-interest to avoid political oblivion. There simply is no room in American poltics for a Republican Party that is neither conservative nor liberal. The lesson to be learned from Doug Hoffman's success in New York 23 is that the choices confronting the Republican Party are: (1) tack back to the right and shore up a base that may give it a chance to win or (2) tack to the left and witness the rise of a conservative third party that will split the conservative vote until the Republican Party itself sinks beneath the waves forever. There are no other choices.

The conservative movement in America has entered a phase of maturity with regard to intellectual and political matters that make it impossible for old-line, big-business, Northeastern, Republican Party bosses to manipulate it. Pundits who talk irresponsibly about the "death of conservatism" are out of touch with reality. America is not going to become Europe any time soon. I would be willing to bet that Europe is more likely to shift rightward in the next decade than America is to shift left-ward.

Obama is making the country more conservative the more he actually implements his big-government, tax and spend policies. The Value Added Tax he will need to introduce to prevent the deficit from destroying the economy will be the last straw and he will be gone in 2012. America cannot afford to be a military superpower and a welfare state like European countries. Canada, Europe and America all have similar levels of taxation; the difference is that what goes for welfare programs in Canada and Europe goes to military expenditures in America. I can't see Obama daring to gut America's military in the short term (although he clearly would like to do so in the long run), so the huge increase in Federal spending must be balanced with significantly higher taxation. What that will do to the economy is not pleasant to contemplate.

If you think that Obama can ramp up the welfare state to European levels, maintain US military dominance and keep taxes at current levels all at the same time, you are simply dreaming. In order for America to implement the liberal goals of the Obama administration, America would have to accept a policy of isolation, accept being held hostage by OPEC, accept the disappearance of Israel as a Jewish state, accept more than a few steps toward world government through the UN and accept the long, slow, decline of the American economy. I think America is a long way from being the kind of country that would accept all that. I think it is a lot more likely that Obama will be a second Jimmy Carter.