Atheists, Agnostics and Believers – Not So Different

If religion is the human effort to reconcile mortality, pain and uncertainty, then atheism and agnosticism are the equivalent efforts to reconcile reason, science and theology.

It was the rare individual who balked at religion and belief in some sort of God before the enlightenment.  As mystifying as the world was, with all its natural calamities, wonders, joys and heartaches, there seemed to be no way to comprehend it without a foundation of Gods, spirits, devils and supernatural events.  The variety and complexity of these attempts to understand the world make up the rich mythology of humankind.

In western civilization, the growth, power and ultimate corruption of the Catholic Church during the middle ages and renaissance led to the Reformation, beginning in the early 1500’s.  By the early 1600’s, the combination of religious chaos and political machination was too volatile to contain, and a thirty-year war of catastrophic proportion ensued, depopulating continental Europe by 20% according to many estimates.

After this devastation, coincident with a growing movement of scientific and philosophical inquiry known in history as the Enlightenment (late 1600’s to the end of the 1700’s), many educated men and women began to question the dogmas and orthodoxies of formal religion.  The elevation of human reasoning and the evidence of the senses eroded much of the unquestioning obedience to the church and new ideas about the nature of God and humankind were abundant.

Such luminaries as Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume and many others developed ideas that undercut the authority of the church and called into question much of the earlier accepted theology of both Christianity and Judaism.

In this period, only the most radical thinkers questioned the existence of God, but many rejected the ‘irrational’ underpinnings of the Christian faith – the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, the trinity – and nurtured the concept of a more nuanced and less dogmatic religious belief.  This belief was coined deism. It acknowledged the existence of God but stripped away most of the supernatural and bureaucratic trappings – the priests, the doctrines, the liturgy – and gave each individual the freedom to relate to God in his or her own way.

The American democratic experiment was in great part influenced by enlightenment concepts.  As children of that intellectual heritage, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and many others were either deists or were influenced by deist concepts.  Thomas Paine wrote the following:

'The opinions I have advanced ... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues – and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now – and so help me God.'

In the 1800’s new scientific revelations further challenged, and to some extent, undermined the claims of established religion.  The newly established geological age of the earth and Darwin’s writings on the Origin of the Species and evolution called into question most of the stories of the ancient religious texts.

Some seekers of truth began to completely reject the notion of God, calling themselves atheists.  Others termed themselves agnostics, finding a middle ground in an ambiguous belief in ‘something’ but not embracing any specific form of religious thought or deity.

Both atheists and religious people, displaying that peculiar habit of humans to be self-righteous and judgmental, excoriated their foes with ridicule and disdain.  Neither group could conceive of how the other group could ascribe to their belief system.  Agnostics generally abandoned the entire exercise of religious inquiry, setting it aside for ‘future study’, perhaps in retirement!

One of the key questions that religious people pose is how the world would function without the moral authority of a God and His or Her religious institutions.  The investigation of this question is underway, as most of Europe and a growing number in the USA have ceased attending any regular, formal religious activities.  Initial reports seem to indicate that Europe has not devolved into an immoral, chaotic hell.  Indeed, some of the most ardent atheists and agnostics are involved in very noble pursuits such as Doctors Without Borders and other very moral endeavors.

Morality is a complex topic, but it is clear that our concept of morality has evolved, as we no longer consider it moral to stone or burn heretics, urge imperial conquerors on with prayers, or accept slavery as a God-ordained institution.  Perhaps it is best for us to use our combined human intellect and inquiry to refine our moral compass, rather than rely on ancient, questionable edicts.

In the final analysis, the three groups - atheists, agnostics and believers - have more in common than one might suspect.  As human beings, we are all faced with the overwhelming task of making sense of the world.  It seems that humanity has generally benefited by our search when it is sincere and in good faith.  There is still more mystery in our universe than fact in the big questions, and we must all live with a certain amount of ambiguity.  If we come to different conclusions about God and religion, yet contribute to the human community and do our best to avoid harming other people or ourselves, can we not call ourselves brothers and sisters and accept our varied, abstract musings without condemnation?

What God or Spirit or Divine Force, if there should be one, would not be proud of the passionate efforts of all humanity to make sense of its world?  Let us embrace the variety of thought and experience and each seek a path that is of rational or spiritual comfort.

A Tale of COVID In Four Graphs

Our country's catastrophic failure in containing the pandemic has led to over 100,000 needless deaths.  Four graphs demonstrate the difference between our response and that of Germany, a very similar country with ¼ of the population of the USA.  The wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth is now ridiculed across the world for good reasons.

The primary culprit in our failure is Donald Trump.  His most sacred duty is to provide national leadership in a crisis.  There is absolutely no question that he failed to do that.  Pandemic leadership is twofold: 

1. Delivering a strong message about the gravity of the crisis and vigorously promoting precautionary measures such as mask-wearing, social distancing, and lockdown measures until the virus is at a level where it can be contained.
2. Mobilizing the necessary national resources (FEMA, CDC, military, national guard, newly hired unemployed, etc.) to provide a level of testing, tracking, tracing and quarantining that will keep the virus in check and minimize deaths.  Working in harmony with governors to employ these resources wherever necessary.

Trump acted in the exact opposite way.  He encouraged protests and ridiculed safety measures.  He said multiple times that the virus would ‘disappear’.  He denied any responsibility for the pandemic’s consequences.  He was more concerned about his election than the lives of US citizens.

Here are four graphs that show the magnitude of our failure.  The first two show the daily deaths from the start of the pandemic to today for the USA and Germany.  Note that the average death rate in the USA has stayed nearly 1000 for the entire summer.  Germany’s daily death rate has averaged in the single digits for that period, a ratio of 100 to 1! 

The second two graphs show the positivity rate of testing during the same period.  It is a well established epidemiological fact that testing needs to be done at a high enough rate so that the positivity numbers are less than 2, or better yet, less than one, to identify any outbreaks quickly and be able to employ tracking, tracing and quarantining to quell them.  The positivity rate in the USA has never gone below 4 and is much higher in many states, while the positivity rate in Germany has stayed at or below 1 since the beginning of June.

In the final analysis, the number of deaths since June 1^st, the date by which both countries had enough time to prepare their responses and get the virus under control, tells the whole story.  Germany with one fourth the population, has had 927 deaths in that time.  The USA has had 100,196 deaths, more than 100 times the number that occurred in Germany.

 Germany had a leader who believed in and valued science, who collaborated well with her 16 independent states and provided sound, moral leadership and advice to the people.  Germany has had bars, restaurants, schools and businesses mostly open since mid-May.  They, like every nation, have had protests against lockdowns and disagreements about specific measures.  But the political and medical leadership has generally convinced the German public to follow the rules and they have reaped the rewards.

Germany has contained COVID-19 while keeping their economy in relatively good shape.  The USA has done neither.  Trump must be held accountable.

Common Sense and COVID-19

Politics and science make for poor bedfellows, but unfortunately, they have been sleeping together ever since the start of the pandemic. The data and reporting associated with this disease has been confusing, but there are some basic facts that, in my opinion, make two things very clear: 

1. That COVID-19 is a serious threat to a significant portion of the population, and we should do everything in our power to minimize its impact until a vaccine provides enough immunity to allow us to move toward a more ‘normal’ life.
2. The USA made catastrophic errors in its management of the pandemic, at least partially based on an election year desire to protect the economy, which have cost us many lives and ironically made the economic downturn worse. 

Here are the basic facts that led me to those conclusions:

• The devastating pandemic health crises that occurred in Wuhan, Italy, Spain, France and the New York/New Jersey/Massachusetts area at the outset of the pandemic are clear indications of what havoc and death the contagion can wreak if no measures are taken and the virus is allowed to get out of control.
• The IFR (infection fatality rate) of COVID-19 is still under investigation. It is most likely several times higher than influenza (0.6 compared to 0.1). To achieve herd immunity by infection would kill well over a million people if we were to resume business as usual.
• It is the combination of IFR and reproduction number R0 that makes COVID-19 particularly dangerous. Unlike influenza, which is held partially in check by an annual vaccine, the reproduction number for COVID-19 is highly unstable unless strong measures are taken. COVID-19 reproduction numbers were estimated at well over 2 during the early phases of the outbreak.  A reproduction number of 2 means that one infected person will cause over 65,000 sicknesses after 16 cycles of infection (approx. 90 days). When the contagion rages unchecked, the IFR will be higher because of healthcare overload. 
• Even with social distancing, partial shutdown and partial adherence to wearing face masks, the USA has lost an average of 1,000 lives per day since late May.
• The hospitalizations and long-term effects of COVID-19 appear to be much more severe than influenza. 
• A number of countries have been able to contain the contagion with a combination of high test rates, tracking, tracing and quarantining. These countries have also been able to open up their economies to a great extent. There are many countries who have had daily death rates in the single digits (or no deaths) for several months after taking these actions (Germany, Korea, Italy, China, Japan, Vietnam, New Zealand and many others).
• The USA never had a national plan to combat the pandemic. Trump played down the danger, was convinced the virus would ‘disappear’ once warm weather arrived and encouraged US citizens to flout lockdown and safety measures. Our daily infection counts never got down low enough for us to contain the virus in most states. We have lost over 100,000 lives since June 1st, the time when we should have had the virus under control. Germany has lost 800 in that same period.

The biggest irony is that an aggressive national plan to contain the virus would have allowed us to get back to a much higher level of economic and social interaction by June. Instead, we are mired in a partial shutdown that is still killing large numbers of people. I believe that most of the world’s reputable scientists and epidemiologists would agree with the facts and conclusions that I mention above. Bill Gates, who has spent the last 20 years of his life working on healthcare issues, has come out recently with scathing criticism of our management of the pandemic. 

Only a desperate desire to excuse Trump from condemnation can interpret the facts above as anything but a catastrophic failure. A recent Pew Charitable Trust poll of developed nations found that the reputation of the USA has plummeted in the wake of the pandemic. The reputation of Trump has also decreased, but it was already so low that the difference is not that dramatic. In Germany, where there is a strong memory of a demagogue, only 10% (the skinheads, neo-Nazis and other radical right groups) approve of Trump. 

 Enough said.

Wealth Disparity and the Billionaire Lottery

The disparity in income and wealth in the USA has been increasing steadily for the last 40 years. Today, the top 1% has 33% of the wealth in the country. The top 10% has 70% and the bottom 50% has only 1.5%! 

In 1948 the top 10% had ‘only’ 30-35%, half of what they have today. The depression and the war years, with very large increases in tax rates for the wealthy, had the effect of dramatically reducing the disparity that had built up from the Gilded Age (end of the 19th century) to the Roaring Twenties. The current level of wealth disparity is quite similar to that of 1929. 

High tax rates continued to keep the disparity somewhat in check from the 50’s to the 70’s. During this period the highest tax rate never went under 70% and peaked at 90%! But beginning with Reagan’s presidency, tax rates decreased steadily, going as low as 35% during the Bush presidency. The highest tax rate today is 40.8%, though no wealthy person pays anywhere near that percentage of tax. 

It is a given that the more wealth you have, the faster it grows. Wealthy people have investment opportunities that ordinary mortals cannot access. The top 10% own 84% of the stock market. Also, both the appreciation of the wealth itself and the income generated from it are either not taxed at all or taxed at a lower level than ordinary income. For example, stocks or other investments are not taxed until there is a sale. And capital gains from stock sales are taxed at a much lower rate. Shockingly, wealthy people are also very adept at evading taxes. 

Who are these very wealthy people and how do they get so absurdly wealthy? That is a complex question with a long answer. But let’s look at one group of absurdly wealthy people – software application businesspeople, the so-called tech giants. A software development business requires a very low capital investment compared to a manufacturing business. Also, the number of workers employed in software development is initially very small, and even once the company grows it is a fraction of the people employed in a manufacturing business of equivalent revenue. 

A software or network-based business can provide services for a vast number of people for very little cost in terms of employees and infrastructure. But here is an even more important factor: Because of the ubiquity and infinite reach of the Internet, a single application business can attain monopoly status without even having to really compete. In many situations, and particularly in social media and consumer goods (a la Amazon), people tend to flock to the same application because the people they know are using it. There is a definite herd instinct. 

Facebook didn’t establish a monopoly on social media because it was better or had ingenious software. People came to FB initially because of its cache as the Ivy League place to be. Once a critical mass of college students and alumni were on board, the rest of the US and then the world followed like so many lemmings. Who is going to use another social media site when all one’s friends are on FB? 

The entrepreneurs who create software and network applications are often participating in the equivalent of a lottery. The great majority of them don’t have unique ideas or capabilities. I have seen this firsthand. Any accomplished software developer is perfectly capable of developing most of the existing billion-dollar applications. But if they manage to hit the jackpot with the right timing, market demand, investors, connections and marketing (and of course it doesn’t hurt to have some backers or angel investors who are well-known in the industry to promote your application), then the rocket ship of growth can take off and propel a typically very small cadre of founders, investors and initial workers into stratospheric wealth. 

Unlike the Gilded Age, where monopolies such as railroads, steel, oil and banking were established by thuggery, conniving and political machinations, the modern era monopolies are to a great extent self-generating. The Internet delivers all potential customers to their door, and search engines, along with a combination of human nature and herd instinct, will quickly create a dominant site that dooms competitors to obscurity. 

And the large ‘knowledge’ corporations of today don’t have to exploit their workers and pay Pinkerton agents to break up strikes to amass wealth for themselves and their cronies, because there are damn few workers and the profits and stock valuations pile up without the need for any dirty work! 

Solidifying and preserving those monopolies does take some effort, for example gobbling up trendy new variations on the theme before they can really cause any damage, or using their vast size to undersell everyone else. Bezos, Zuckerberg et al have certainly channeled Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and other robber barons in this regard. 

There is a long history of the gilded class arguing that having massive wealth in the hands of a few is the best way for civilization to progress. I will address this self-serving trope in a future essay. However, the fact that our current wealth disparity and stock market ‘irrational exuberance’ is so similar to conditions just before the Great Depression might make us all pause and reflect on where our society is headed. 

And then there’s COVID-19 and global warming . . .

Deaths, COVID-19 and 'Acceptable Losses'

 I was appalled to see a survey that said 57% of republicans believe that 170,000 deaths due to COVID-19 are ‘acceptable’.  Even in the current polarized political atmosphere this is beyond the pale.

I have heard people justify this viewpoint by saying that the primary victims of the pandemic are old and/or medically compromised, and that the pandemic is not much worse than the flu, which kills a large number of people each year.  Another rationalization is that the losses are acceptable in relationship to the risks of economic collapse and its ramifications.

First of all, the flu is a very different phenomenon than COVID-19.  It is not at all clear how many deaths are actually due to the flu.  Almost no one dies from the flu itself.  The deaths attributed to the flu are typically those involving secondary infections of pneumonia or coronary failure.  The estimates of death are purely based on statistical analysis of overall deaths with a lot of assumptions thrown in.  The flu is not tested for or confirmed in the great majority of the deaths that are attributed to it.

Until 2003, the numbers of deaths reported for the flu were very low.  The CDC began to publicize much higher estimates after 2003 in order to provide motivation for people to get vaccinated.

Even given the reported fatality rates, the flu is still much less dangerous than COVID-19.  The reproduction number for the flu is much lower, as is its fatality rate.  Additionally, the long gestation period and, the number of asymptomatic carriers make COVID-19 even more contagious.  If there had not been a near total shutdown of society in the March to May timeframe, we could have seen our healthcare systems overwhelmed and half a million deaths.  The catastrophic scenes in Italy, Spain, France, the UK and New York City would have spread across our nation.  There is no valid comparison between a typical flu season and what occurred in those places.

Moreover, many, if not most of the COVID-19 victims die directly from the disease, not from secondary infections.  Front line physicians and epidemiologists are unified in their portrayal of COVID-19 as a dramatically more brutal and dangerous disease than the flu.  It also can randomly overwhelm young healthy adults and kill them, something the flu almost never does.

Death rates from COVID-19 have decreased as healthcare experts have become more adept at managing treatment regimes.  But cases have continued to spread quite rapidly in the USA even with most cities and states in partial shutdown and people generally keeping social distance and wearing masks.

People were going to die from COVID-19.  It caught the world by surprise.  However, it is the responsibility of each country’s leader to prevent unnecessary deaths.  The initial deaths in the Northeast hub states were tragic, and certainly there were mistakes made and there was mass confusion, but that only accounts for about 60,000 of the current 180,000 deaths. 

By failing to take executive action to lead the nation in battling COVID-19, Trump must accept primary responsibility for most of the deaths that occurred after the beginning of June.  The shortened lockdown, due in great part to Trump’s reelection-conscious drum-beating to ‘get the economy back’, as well as the lack of a national testing, tracking, tracing and quarantine strategy, doomed the USA to a continuous rise in cases and deaths.

Here is the starkest comparison:  Germany, a country with similar people, technology, and healthcare capabilities, enforced their shutdown until the levels of new cases were low enough to test, track and quarantine.  Germany’s population is approximately one fourth of the US population, but the population density is higher, which should make it more difficult to control contagion.  Germany has had bars, restaurants and schools open since late May.  They continue to social distance and wear masks. 

Germany’s testing positivity rate (the % of tests that are positive) is well below 1%, usually between .3 and .6.  Compare this with the US positivity rate of 8-12%.  One cannot adequately monitor and control the contagion with positivity rates that high.

The table below shows the incredibly dramatic difference between Germany’s cases and deaths from June 1 to August 24 versus the USA’s.  The USA has had a hundred times as many deaths and cases with only 4 times the population! 

	Number of new cases from June 1 to August 24	Number of Deaths from June 1 to August 24
USA	4,037,630	71,470
Germany	52,352	718

Interestingly, the fatality rate for Germany’s known cases during this period is about 1.4%.  Given that they are testing at such a low positivity rate and testing so extensively based on tracing each infection, the number of positive tests is probably close to the true total number of people infected.   That would mean that this fatality rate is accurate for the disease in an advanced healthcare system when at risk people are taking extra precautions.  It would be higher in a developing country.  In any event, a fatality rate of 1.4% would be about 14 times the theoretical fatality rate of influenza, which 0.1%.  Again, a strong indication that COVID-19 is very dangerous.

By the way, Germany has had far fewer negative economic ramifications from its longer, but more effective initial shutdown than the USA.  Their unemployment is at about 5.6%, whereas the US is at 10.2%. 

Deaths from disease are only ‘acceptable’ when they could not have reasonably been prevented.  There is absolutely no doubt that the USA could have prevented tens of thousands of deaths had it been resolved to do so and followed the example of Germany and other successful countries.  It is heartless and willfully ignorant to claim that these deaths are 'acceptable'.

I Finally Understand How Hitler Came to Power in Germany

 

I began studying the German language in college when I fell in love with a girl whose family had emigrated from Germany.  I was fascinated by the intellectual depth of her family and their culture.  My studies of German acquainted me with the incredible wealth of German accomplishment – philosophy, theology, music, science, literature, poetry.  I studied at the University of Bonn in 1974-75, while Bonn was the German capital.

Like all Americans of that era, I had grown up on a steady diet of war movies and television shows that depicted Germans as either sadistic Nazis or incompetent German soldiers.  When I studied in Bonn, the country had just begun to intensely study the Third Reich period.  One of the courses I took focused on the period up to Hitler’s installation as Chancellor.  The professor was excellent, and it was fascinating to witness the children of the Nazi period confront their parents’ history.

But even after intense study of the causes and events of the 20’s and early 30’s, I found it difficult to comprehend how a people with such intellectual and cultural refinement could possibly allow Hitler to come to power.  It just didn’t seem to make sense.

Now, upon seeing so many of my neighbors, friends and relatives cling to Donald Trump, even after the evidence of how deeply flawed and damaged he is has accumulated beyond any reasonable doubt, I finally understand how Hitler succeeded.

I am not saying that Trump is as bad as Hitler.  I believe he has many of the same traits – the narcissism, the lack of humility, the vindictiveness, the willingness to do or say anything to promote his own interests, the mendacity, the lack of any ennobling spirit.  I also do not doubt that Trump could become as evil as Hitler if he were given a similar set of circumstances.  But for now, he is inhibited, thank God, by a much more established set of laws and political practices that provide a bulwark against his authoritarian instincts.

Like Hitler, Trump is a man who an objective, unaffected observer would never choose to be a leader.  But between ignorance, cynicism, hunger for power, self-interest and indoctrination, close to half of the nation is willing, if not eager, to keep Trump in office.

Here are the different groups that fall prey to Trump’s appeal, just as they did to Hitler’s:

• The ignorant, whose blind nationalism, subliminal (or overt) racism,  and lack of comprehension and study of economic, social and political issues make them completely susceptible.  This group is mesmerized by the man, just as Germans were bewitched by Hitler.  Now, Hitler’s speeches seem ludicrous and comical, just as Trump’s speeches are incomparably idiotic to anyone not in his thrall.
• The fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, who are so fearful of changes in our culture and society that they are willing to make a pact with the devil himself to attempt a forced return to a mythical world that never really existed. 
• The cynical and self-interested, who recognize Trump’s character flaws but see in his policies financial gain for themselves and are thus willing to ignore them.  This includes all the billionaires and wealthy Americans who are so opposed to any brake on their accelerating good fortune, and so selfishly immersed in the worship of pure capitalism, that they eagerly take the risk of having a demagogue and charlatan as President.
• The power-hungry, whose access to power is currently predicated on loyalty to Trump.  Many of them castigated Trump during his ascent to power and surely still harbor dislike, if not outright detestation of the man.  But they meekly kowtow to him so that they can retain their positions of power, because power is their only desire.  And like the Weimar politicians who believed that Hitler was controllable, they convince themselves that Trump can only cause so much damage.

When do ‘good people’ turn into bad people?  Every human being has the potential for good and evil.  The good person, who is a wonderful friend and neighbor and treats his or her children with love and affection, and goes to church every Sunday, is the same person who stands in a mob opposing peaceful BLM protesters, face distorted with hatred, ready to fight or even kill.  The dark side of human beings is always close to the surface. 

The good Germans who welcomed Hitler with gleeful, patriotic fervor, believing he would ‘make Germany great again’; the good Germans who turned a blind eye because they thought his ascension would bring stability and financial advantage; the good Germans who supported him to keep their positions and power; they all became the bad Germans who set the world on a path of incomprehensible death and misery.

Those good-turned-bad Germans are not unique.  We are the same people, with the same potential for good and evil, walking the same thin line between love and hate, nobility and savagery.  Let us pray that enough of us have the strength, the wisdom and the courage to hold the line.

The Myth of the ‘Assault on Religious Freedom’

In my efforts to understand how otherwise sane and wonderful people who identify as Christians can support Donald Trump, I have identified a basic fear that many Christians have that undergirds this support.  They fear that they are ‘losing their religious rights’, that there is an ‘assault on their religious freedom’.  They are panicked that America is becoming a secular nation and that the ‘family’ values they hold dear are under attack.

They point to the decreasing role that the church and religion play in our society.  They fret that more and more people are leaving the church and becoming agnostics or atheists.  They see changes in sexuality, family make-up, patriotism, demographics and other cultural phenomena and fear that we are on a downhill slide to immorality and decadence.

What do these anxious Christians view as their religious rights, their morality, and their values?  Jesus spoke most about seeking spiritual rather than material wealth, welcoming the stranger, meeting the needs of the poor and hungry, being humble, forgiving and loving.  Are these the values that American Christians think are under assault?  Are these the values that Trump personifies?

No, the values that American Christians (mostly the evangelical ones) espouse have more to do with sexual practices, abortion, homosexuality, prayer in schools and government and other issues that Jesus never or rarely addresses. 

No one is saying that these Christians cannot hold their beliefs or practice their religion.  If they want to remain celibate until marriage, they are free to do so.  If they want to suppress any homosexual urges they or their children may have, no one will stop them. If they want to carry a bible around with them and pray constantly, fine, but don’t force others to do it in school or anywhere else.

And if they want to spurn birth control and have a large family, by all means go for it!  Let’s face it, if they really wanted to dramatically limit abortions, they would be encouraging birth control and sex education rather than trying to pretend that we can go back to an age of no pre-marital sex.  Shall we have our children marrying at 13 again?

On the family values front, it is indeed sad that many families fall apart, that divorce is common, and that single parenting occurs so frequently.  But that trend began well before the decline in church attendance and its causes lie more in the realm of the changing and complex world we live in, and the evolving roles of women and men, than in our religious practices.

Europe and Canada have transitioned to mostly secular societies.  Church affiliation and attendance in those nations is generally below 20% and much lower in Scandinavian nations, for example.  Where is the moral degradation and decline that Christians fear would result?  It is not to be found.  In fact, an argument can easily be made that these nations are much more moral and ethical than America.  They have taken the true substance of religion to heart and jettisoned the façade.

I understand the anxiety that animates conservative, evangelical Christians.  There are always unsettling changes in society as it evolves.  Unfortunately, the rigid dogma that these Christians embrace makes it difficult for them to adapt to these changes and work within them for a better world.  Fundamentalists are profoundly uncomfortable with ambiguity.  They long for absolutes and certainty.  And as they cling desperately to biblical inerrancy, scientific skepticism, and other doomed fallacies in thought, they have blithely enabled, in Trump, the most dangerous assault on our true values (honesty, humility, love, forgiveness, kindness, community) that the country has ever seen.