12 Comments

Maximilian
August 28th, 2012 | 9:47 am

The article on C.S. Lewis is really good, and I completely agree. It’s interesting how much sense this man had.

However, I will point out that life is also cheap in America, where in some states, killing your child by denying him life-saving medicine is completely legal. “Religious freedom” – two words that can justify any evil in the world.

David Nickol
August 28th, 2012 | 9:56 am

John Piper thinks life is cheap in Norway because a mass murderer got only a 21-year sentence (which can be extended indefinitely as long as the murderer is considered a danger to society).

It’s interesting to note that Norway’s murder rate is 0.6 per 100,000 as compared to 4.2 for the United States. So the murder rate in the United States is seven times higher in the United States than in Norway, but according to Piper, in Norway life is cheap.

Steve Billingsley
August 28th, 2012 | 10:34 am

David Nickol,

Good point. Harsh sentencing doesn’t equal respect for life. I do think that a mass murder deserves more than 21 years (life in prison without the possibility of parole I think is appropriate for this kind of crime), but the longer mandatory sentencing that is in place in the U.S. for even some non-violent crimes has just created a larger prison population and made prisons a big business (the article linked below delves into this somewhat)

http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20115#.UDYoyeUvya4.facebook

Another example of the cheapness with which life is valued in the U.S. is the 800,000 or so abortions that are annually performed. I am not an expert on life in Norway, but if we want to see “The Abolition of Man” being lived out before us, we don’t have to look very far.

Maximilian
August 28th, 2012 | 12:59 pm

Steve, I don’t know if there are fewer abortions in Norway per capita, but if that is the case, it’s not because Norwegians are more anti-abortion, but because of better access to contraception and more healthy attitudes toward sex.

Of course, this is all interrelated. Fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer single parents and fewer teenage mothers, and that means a lower crime (and murder) rate. Isn’t the US the #1 in teenage pregnancies (or close to it) in the industrialized world?

Steve Billingsley
August 28th, 2012 | 2:29 pm

I don’t know the abortion or teen pregnancy statistics in Norway either and am not particularly inclined to comment on how much Norway does or doesn’t value human life. I am sure it has it’s share of problems, but it is pretty clear to me that in many ways, the U.S. doesn’t value life as it should.

One editorial comment (not based on Norway in particular, but on trends that I have seen in statistics over time is many countries) – increasing access to contraception and abortion doesn’t lower illegitimacy. For example, the amount of access to contraception and abortion in the U.S. is exponentially higher now than it was in say, 1950. But the rate of illegitimacy is also much higher. Does that equal a “healthier attitude toward sex”? What exactly is that? More is better with whomever? I don’t know that represents a healthy attitude. So how does one quantify that?

Maximilian
August 28th, 2012 | 2:59 pm

No country in the world values life and human rights as it should. For example, look at the Islamic world. Abortion is generally outlawed, but life is not terribly respected. There isn’t necessarily any correlation between the two.

Your mistake regarding contraception is to assume that nothing has changed since the 1950s, other than access to contraception and abortion. There has been a vast cultural change. People have a lot more freedom. This is not exclusive to the United States, and yet this country has (one of) the highest rate(s) of teenage and unwanted pregnancies, in spite of (I’d say because of) the fact that it has fundamentalist attitudes regarding sex. Adequate sex education is made impossible by religious fundamentalists, who insist that contraceptives remain unmentioned, and that the ‘education’ insist that people get a government document before they have relations. And what is the result? America being number one in teenage pregnancies.

Unless you want to argue that European teenagers are exceptionally virtuous, or that they are extremely responsible, the fault for the teenage pregnancies in America lies with these unhealthy attitudes that are prevalent in America.

Steve Billingsley
August 28th, 2012 | 3:18 pm

There has been a vast cultural change and contraception and abortion are part of that change. But one can’t simply point to the availability of contraception and abortion as some sort of factor in a vacuum that corresponds on a one-to-one basis to unwanted pregnancies. I don’t know that I would necessarily call that freedom. And what you may be referring to as “fundamentalist attitudes toward sex” aren’t unique to Christianity or religious people in general.

A quote from Ross Douthat might fit in here (he refers to the West, but I think the US fits quite well.

“It may seem strange that anyone could look around the pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued West and see a society menaced by a repressive puritanism. But it’s clear that this perspective is widely and sincerely held.”

IMO the biggest factor in unwanted pregnancies (technically a 19 year old married person would absolutely want to get pregnant), other than human desire, isn’t inadequate sex education in public schools due to those dreaded fundamentalists. It is family breakdown and a culture that treats sex as some sort of cross between a generic pleasure (like a candy bar) or an indoor sport (akin to squash), instead of something valuable, beautiful, powerful and intended to function best within sane boundaries.

Maximilian
August 28th, 2012 | 8:10 pm

Steve: But one can’t simply point to the availability of contraception and abortion as some sort of factor in a vacuum that corresponds on a one-to-one basis to unwanted pregnancies.

They were one of the causes of the attitude change, but the attitudes will not disappear, even if you outlawed abortion and contraception today.

Steve: And what you may be referring to as “fundamentalist attitudes toward sex” aren’t unique to Christianity or religious people in general.

I never said that they were unique. But they are most commonly held by religious people. And the question is whether they are healthy for individuals and for societies.

Steve: IMO the biggest factor in unwanted pregnancies (technically a 19 year old married person would absolutely want to get pregnant), other than human desire

Human desire is a constant, and therefore useless in explaining.

Steve: It is family breakdown and a culture that treats sex as some sort of cross between a generic pleasure

This is no different in any other industrialized country – being the most religious country, probably less so than in the other ones. If it is true that this is the cause of teenage pregnancies, why does the most puritanical and fundamentalist country in the industrialized world have the biggest problem with teenage pregnancies? I can guarantee you that there are fewer people in Norway who frown on premarital sex. Yet Norway has much less of a problem. What is Norway (and the rest of the industrialized world) doing right?

You cite the overrated Ross Douthat, who creates a straw man opponent who argues that “the West” is too puritanical. But I didn’t talk about “the West”, nor did anyone. I talked about the United States – where the Congress spends hundreds of millions on “sex education” that is prohibited from mentioning contraceptives, and which tells teenagers that they are supposed to marry before. The fundamentalist lobby is so powerful, that it has wrested to itself the power to tell other people’s children that they ought to abide by the religious beliefs of the fundamentalists – which I daresay few fundamentalists follow. I submit that this is repressive puritanism.

Steve Billingsley
August 29th, 2012 | 10:48 am

I just think that the “Christian fundamentalist” is a bogeyman that exists more in your own mind as an explanation for things than exists in reality.

The idea that sexual behavior is most healthy when in the context of a loving and committed marriage and that should be presented, in word and example, as the best option is not repressive purtianism any more than the idea that playing with matches is bad or eating candy all day long is bad for your teeth. It is consistent with reality. Mature adulthood can be defined as learning to delay or defer gratification to achieve a greater good. Waiting to engage in sexual behavior until one is mature enough and stable enough in one’s life to deal with the possible consequences (i.e. a baby, but also the emotional vulnerability and attachment that is part and parcel to sexuality) is just common sense. It is akin to things like getting up in the morning and showing up to school or a job on time or paying one’s bills (only with much higher stakes).

And by the way, when was the last time you saw public school sex education materials? I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt and the materials that are taught here include plenty about contraception and don’t tell teenagers to marry. Speaking of “straw men”.

Maximilian
August 29th, 2012 | 12:02 pm

Steve: I just think that the “Christian fundamentalist” is a bogeyman that exists more in your own mind as an explanation for things than exists in reality.

You keep asserting that, without showing it to be true. You haven’t given me one reason why I should not be wary of people who push ridiculous nonsense as sex education, who want to destroy science education because it conflicts with their book, who want to deny a woman her right to choose even in cases of “legitimate rape”, who want to use the power of the state to push their religion on other people – and who complain about being “persecuted” whenever anyone criticizes them.

Steve: The idea that sexual behavior is most healthy when in the context of a loving and committed marriage and that should be presented, in word and example, as the best option is not repressive purtianism

That’s not the idea that these programs spread. They don’t say that it’s “most healthy”, they say that it should only occur when the two parties are married. Not as the “best option”, but as the only option. So I do agree that a healthy relationship should eventually result in marriage, not that marriage should eventually result in a healthy relationship.

Steve: Waiting to engage in sexual behavior until one is mature enough and stable enough in one’s life to deal with the possible consequences

A strawman of astronomical proportions. I didn’t say that people shouldn’t wait until maturity and stability. In fact, I favor that. I said that ‘marriage’ is a ridiculous criterion. And it’s ridiculous to marry early to be able to have relations.

Also, “abstinence-only” nonsense has not a word to say about maturity and stability, only about marriage – so this is a double strawman.

Steve: And by the way, when was the last time you saw public school sex education materials?

When I was in high school. When was the last time you saw a Congressional appropriations bill? The last year of the Bush administration, more than $100 million (if I’m not mistaken, more than $200 million) was spent in one year on abstinence-only trash. And that’s just federal funding. It’s since been eliminated, but it shows that fundamentalists do when they have the political power – force their Bronze Age views down the throats of all.

Steve: I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt and the materials that are taught here include plenty about contraception and don’t tell teenagers to marry.

So where do you live in the Bible Belt? Not a small town, I’m guessing. Probably a big city in the “buckle of the Bible Belt”, elsewise an exception.

Steve Billingsley
August 29th, 2012 | 2:25 pm

“You keep asserting that, without showing it to be true”

Have you shown anything that you have asserted to be true? At all? Have you even tried? Project much?

I have lived in both small towns and big cities. And the sex education materials in public schools (I was involved in youth ministry at a much higher degree when I lived in small towns) were very similar. There was a time when there were no (as in zero) sex education materials of any kind in any schools (just like contraception and abortion were incredibly difficult to come by) and illegitimacy was much lower (and that wasn’t that long ago). You never answered that at all except to say that culture changed. Why did the culture change? Because of repressive puritanism? The change in culture, such as it was, was almost entirely in the opposite direction. Sex education in public schools (even in countries that have the most liberal or progessive views) takes up very little time and space in curriculum. I would contend that it has very little shaping effect, one way or another on the sexual behavior of teens. Mass media, peer pressure and most importantly, home environment shape this behavior. The rate of illegitimacy is highest among households where at least one parent is absent and where the parent that is there is a result of an illegitimate pregnancy to begin with. To obsess about whether junior and high school kids get instructions on how to use a condom in school or have the local Title X distribution center for birth-control pills on speed dial is a bit rich.

By the way, where did I say that people should marry to “be able to have relations”? That’s one part of marriage (and an important part to be sure) but that isn’t the reason to get married. We should consider, however, that our society has pushed marriage (in as much as it favors it, which isn’t that much) later and later. After all, one has to finish college and get a great job, enjoy oneself and sow whatever wild oats that they want to sow and then settle down and consider marriage. So having full sexual function and desire for a good 15-20 years and then getting married isn’t necessarily a recipe for restraint and success. There is a great case to be made that many people should consider marriage earlier, but our culture extends adolescence in a myriad of ways. Maturity and marriage aren’t the same thing, but they do intersect in many ways for many people. The social expectation that marriage and family were a normal part of young adulthood (and by this I mean in the 18-30 year old age range) has, if not disappeared, definitely shrunk. Is that a good thing?

By the way, Bush isn’t President anymore. And he wasn’t President for the 8 years before that, either. But he makes a convenient bogeyman as well (for all kinds of people).

Speaking of “straw men”, I can only go by what you actually say. Your comments seem to indicate that the reason for “unwanted pregnancies” has everything to do with not enough access to contraception, abortion and sex-education that isn’t “abstinence-only”. If you think otherwise, then I wouldn’t know it from your comments. I am only pointing out that contraception and abortion are widely available and sex education that isn’t “abstinence-only” is widely taught in many, many public schools (including the Bible Belt, in small and large towns), this availability has only gone up in the last 50 years and the rate of illegitimacy hasn’t decreased at all.

The U.S., if it ever really was, is much less of a “Christian Fundamentalist” place now than it was 50 years ago. And what influence it has in popular culture is less than it was then. So why has illegitimacy increased?

As the rest (destroying science education, denying a woman the right to choose, complaining about persecution), be wary of whomever you want to be wary of…be my guest. But don’t pretend that the prevalence of abortion is unrelated to a lack of valuing of human life and that the problems of the world (or even that high of percentage of the problems of the world) – can be laid at the feet of “Christian Fundamentalists” (complete with scare quotes).

Maximilian
August 29th, 2012 | 6:45 pm

Steve: Have you shown anything that you have asserted to be true? At all?

For one, I have pointed you to the significant appropriations made by Congress for abstinence-only nonsense, while your point rests on anecdote.

Steve: There was a time when there were no (as in zero) sex education materials of any kind in any schools (just like contraception and abortion were incredibly difficult to come by) and illegitimacy was much lower

Yes, I have already addressed this, a vast cultural change has followed, and things aren’t going back to the way they used to be by outlawing abortion, contraception and sex education.

Steve: You never answered that at all except to say that culture changed. Why did the culture change? Because of repressive puritanism?

Obviously, I meant the sexual revolution, which led to a decline in this puritanism. Extreme social repression is effective in preventing things like illegitimacy – just look at the Islamic world.

Steve: I would contend that it has very little shaping effect, one way or another on the sexual behavior of teens.

You are very likely correct in this.

Steve: The rate of illegitimacy is highest among households where at least one parent is absent and where the parent that is there is a result of an illegitimate pregnancy to begin with.

Another good point. But it’s somewhat circular: illegitimacy leads to illegitimacy. This still doesn’t explain why the United States, the most puritan country in the industrialized world, is number one in teenage pregnancies.

Steve: By the way, where did I say that people should marry to “be able to have relations”?

You didn’t explicitly, but you were defending abstinence-only nonsense which preaches exactly that.

Steve: The social expectation that marriage and family were a normal part of young adulthood (and by this I mean in the 18-30 year old age range) has, if not disappeared, definitely shrunk. Is that a good thing?

I’d say, on balance yes. Let people get a good education, before they are preoccupied by taking care of their spouses and raising children. This is especially good for women, on whom the bulk of the child-rearing responsibilities usually fall.

Steve: By the way, Bush isn’t President anymore. And he wasn’t President for the 8 years before that, either. But he makes a convenient bogeyman as well

I didn’t use him as a bogeyman. I used what happened during his presidency as an example of what happens when fundamentalists have political power. The point was completely unrelated to Bush, as this abstinence-only nonsense was initiated under Clinton by the Republican Congress (also controlled by fundamentalists).

Steve: Your comments seem to indicate that the reason for “unwanted pregnancies” has everything to do with not enough access to contraception, abortion and sex-education that isn’t “abstinence-only”.

It does seem to be a major reason to me, yes. Otherwise, it would not make sense that the United States is number one in teenage pregnancies in the industrialized world.

Steve: I am only pointing out that contraception and abortion are widely available and sex education that isn’t “abstinence-only” is widely taught in many, many public schools (including the Bible Belt, in small and large towns), this availability has only gone up in the last 50 years and the rate of illegitimacy hasn’t decreased at all.

You cannot really compare 2012 to 1962, but alright.

Steve: But don’t pretend that the prevalence of abortion is unrelated to a lack of valuing of human life

Are you suggesting that I do not value human life, because I do not think that a fertilized egg is a human person?

Steve: and that the problems of the world (or even that high of percentage of the problems of the world) – can be laid at the feet of “Christian Fundamentalists”

I cannot recall that I ever mentioned “problems of the world”. There are plenty of non-Christian fundamentalists who are causing those.