Palin and the Politics of Family

Much of the media reaction to Sarah Palin has to me been amusing, such as: “In the press galleries at the convention, journalists wrinkled their noses in disgust when Piper, Ms. Palin’s youngest daughter, was filmed kitty-licking her baby brother’s hair into place.” Yet the disconnect evident in this small example does indicate anxiety over something more profound – fertility. I think the more children a couple has, the greater the probability to be religious and sympathetic to traditionalistic notions that highly value rootedness and a sense of place. For those who set our cultural pulse, this sort of lifestyle is rather alien. (Jonathan V. Last has some details here.) The theory of affordable family formation appears to have fairly solid explanatory power and will certainly receive further study. And if it does, the Republicans have done a very smart thing in nominating for vice president a woman who appeals directly to this volatile and nervous constituency.

This entry was posted on Monday, September 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm and is filed under Election, Family, Jonathan, Politics, Public Policy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

94 Responses to “Palin and the Politics of Family”

Tony says:

September 8, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Well said, Jonathan. I think a more important aspect is the selfless attitude taken by this family. If every family supported each other this way, we wouldn’t need Democrat social programs.
Policraticus says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:05 pm

I think the more children a couple has, the greater the probability to be religious and sympathetic to traditionalistic notions that highly value rootedness and a sense of place.

This seems to me to be a false assumption. Not only for the obvious reason of the value of chastity over and above the married life, but also because there are plenty of counter examples in the concrete that indicate just the opposite. It is fine to prefer a large family. It is quite another to suggest that a large family actually increases the “probability” of religiosity (religion and tradition not being coextensive).
Morning's Minion says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:14 pm

I know the Republicans are doing their best to claim that the animosity toward Palin is about her family. Sheer nonsense. Nobody has a problem that she is a mother, and even the most hardened lefties give her credit for raising a child with Down’s Syndrome. Likewise, nobody is blaming her for her daughter’s pregnancy (though many on the right who have a habit of blaming parents on these matters have flip-flopped faster than John McCain on taxes).

I personally have an issue with her ambition– knowing her daughter’s condition, she nonetheless accepted the nomination, knowing the whole world would be scrutinizing a 17-year old girl. And surely being VP is not a 9-5 job: who will look after the little special needs child? Who will be the primary care-giver? Her husband?

The real problem, however, is that she has no substance about her whatsoever. And it’s not just lack of experience. Plenty of people with little experience are well read and versed in the intricacies of domestic and foreign policy debates. Palin has never given any indication of familiarity with any area. She is indeed “ordinary”, but unlike some of my friends on the right, I do not regard this as a qualification for high executive office.

Here’s the other thing: not only has she nothing to say, when she speaks she attacks Obama using a level of snark and nastiness that I find a little obnoxious. I was especially angry by her comment about “reading terrorists their rights” which sounded like she supports all the grave abuses of the Bush-Cheney years (but again, given that the speech had no substance, it’s hard to tell). And then there’s the whole “before the bridge to nowhere before she was against it” thing. Oh, and by the way, the lack of substance includes abortion– not a word from either her or McCain while Obama at least made some conciliatory noises.

So this is not about her gender, or her family. It’s about her readiness to be vice-president, or even president– which she would have a non-negligible chance of becoming, given McCain’s advanced age and health history. When I see her, and the adulation she inspires, all I can think is “My God, it’s the female George Bush, and they are falling for the same trick as last time”. She even has the Bush-administration tendency of using her official position to settle personal scores! For when somebody is elected based on supposed “character”, don’t be surprised if this person lacks the judgment and temperament to lead.
Jeremy says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Actually, in my experience about a large family implying religiosity to be right on the mark. There might not be causality, but there is certainly correlation. Granted, I have a rather limited social sphere, but I have never met anyone with more than 3 kids who does not attend a religious service on a regular basis. I have met several with 3 kids who don’t, but they do consider themselves religious.
jonathanjones02 says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:24 pm

This seems to me to be a false assumption.

It’s a provocative theory, and correlation is obviously not causation, but not one without evidence. The evidence is in the article: that across cultures and times, a decline in the birth rate is followed by a decline in religious attendance. More than one anecdote is a potential data point.

Not only for the obvious reason of the value of chastity over and above the married life, but also because there are plenty of counter examples in the concrete that indicate just the opposite.

What are the countries?
blackadderiv says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:32 pm

I know the Republicans are doing their best to claim that the animosity toward Palin is about her family. Sheer nonsense.

Yes, where could anyone have gotten *that* idea, I wonder.
Gerald A. Naus says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:38 pm

“the value of chastity over and above the married life”

?? It’s one thing to tell oneself that sitting in a monastery but as someone who’s getting married ??
Michael Denton says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Policratius:

I think there is some truth in what jonathan said, if for nothing else than that having children generally requires greater sacrifice (at the very least financially, if not in effort time, personal desires, etc). The cultivation of dying to self for others of course does not necessarily mean one will be more religious but surely would seem to help. This is why contraception and materialism seem so closely rooted.

minion:

Your criticism of Palin’s ambition would suggest that mothers with young children should not be in political office; or at least high political office. Is that your opinion? If so, how old should they be before the mom can work? Does this apply to all professions or is politics different for some reason? I’m just curious to know where you want to go with this?
Policraticus says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:44 pm

It’s a provocative theory, and correlation is obviously not causation, but not one without evidence.

Provocations aside, a theory that rests on correlations cannot stick when there is an abundance of counterexamples to the theory itself.

What are the countries?

Since countries are not the agents of pious belief and act, and since countries don’t give birth to children, there is little point in describing a country as “religious.” It has no real meaning. “Country” is a third term that need not be introduced as it simply obfuscates the “correlation” you describe. The correlation between number of children in a family and the level of religiosity seems to be nothing but a chimera. At best, there are some coincidences. Fervency of belief is not conditioned by number of children.
Policraticus says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:45 pm

I think there is some truth in what jonathan said, if for nothing else than that having children generally requires greater sacrifice (at the very least financially, if not in effort time, personal desires, etc).

This is not a distinctively religious attitude. Sacrificing for children is more of noble act that is basic to human instinct and nurture. While religiosity can certainly enhance it, we must not confuse it with a religious attitude itself.
blackadderiv says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:46 pm

The correlation between religiosity and fertility is pretty well established and is not refuted by the fact that one can point to a few counter-examples, any more than pointing out that some women are taller than some men refutes the idea that men tend to be taller than women.
Policraticus says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:48 pm

?? It’s one thing to tell oneself that sitting in a monastery but as someone who’s getting married ??

I’m getting married this Saturday (as long as Hurricane Ike cooperates). I have no problem recognizing the purely supernatural calling to consecration to Christ in chastity. Marriage is a natural institution, so it is not denigrated by the existence of a vocation that stems from revelatory experience. The sacrament of Matrimony is raised supernaturally, but it nevertheless remains a natural state of life.
Policraticus says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:54 pm

The correlation between religiosity and fertility is pretty well established and is not refuted by the fact that one can point to a few counter-examples, any more than pointing out that some women are taller than some men refutes the idea that men tend to be taller than women.

Beyond the fact that the local news article ties religious faith and large families together as only an “often” occurrence (which hardly “establishes” anything), one may go so far as to concede that the correlation is well established in Mormonism. That’s not the same as well established universally. The “few exceptions” are not few at all. A more insightful conclusion (but no more “established” than the correlation theory Jonathan proposes) would be that there is a causal relation between families of deep faith and large families, that is, the former causes the latter. But this still does not “establish” anything.
S.B. says:

September 8, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Palin has never given any indication of familiarity with any area. She is indeed “ordinary”, but unlike some of my friends on the right, I do not regard this as a qualification for high executive office.

It looks rather silly to say that someone has “never” done something just because you (in your cocooned little world) haven’t heard of it. Check out, for example, the debate in which Palin participated before being elected governor. She certainly seemed to know the ins and outs of quite a few different policies. Search for Palin on http://www.c-span.org, and look for the entry on Aug. 21, 2006. And before being elected governor, Palin spent some time as the head of a state regulatory commission. If you know nothing of such things, be assured that state regulatory commissions spend a great deal of time on regulatory policy. It’s just nonsense to say that Palin isn’t familiar with “any area” of policy.
HA says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:00 pm

This seems to me to be a false assumption. Not only for the obvious reason of the value of chastity over and above the married life, but also because there are plenty of counter examples in the concrete that indicate just the opposite.

Mary Eberstadt has been a strong proponent of the thesis that smaller families push societies towards secularity, in contrast to the more commonly accepted contrary claim that secularism drives diminishing family size. You would do well to check out her essays for FirstThings, and more relevantly, for the Hoover Institute – do a search on “First Things religion children Mary Eberstadt”.
If you recall, Jonathan did a post on her “Vindication of HV” essay a while back at Vox Nova which you dismissed in characteristic fashion as: “More of the stupidity that so often graces First Things. And this stuff passes as ‘intellectual.’”. (I daresay such half-formed, knee-jerk rebuttals say a lot more about the intellectual capacity of certain V-N posters than they do about the journals they sneer at, but I digress.)

As to your objections, citing examples of chaste and childless people and large irreligious families does little to disprove Eberstadt’s claim if the presence of these is compensated by an even larger number of children from larger religious families. That is presumably what Eberstadt is claiming, and for what it is worth, that super-compensation was presumably the European norm in previous years, when there were many more religious people and freethinkers with large families, and yet society as a whole was more fecund and more religious. I do not know if she is right or wrong, but her thesis is worth a look – and the fact that it apparently rubs certain people the wrong way is an added enticement.
ben says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:01 pm

I never in my life even heard of a family with more than 5 kids headed by a couple of atheists.

What counter-examples are you talking about? Surely not those unfortunate families with as many fathers as children?
S.B. says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Provocations aside, a theory that rests on correlations cannot stick when there is an abundance of counterexamples to the theory itself.

Social science 101 here: anecdotes don’t disprove a correlation.
S.B. says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Palin has never given any indication of familiarity with any area. She is indeed “ordinary”, but unlike some of my friends on the right, I do not regard this as a qualification for high executive office.

It looks rather naive to say that someone has “never” done something just because you (in your cocooned little world) haven’t heard of it. Check out, for example, the debate in which Palin participated before being elected governor. She certainly seemed to know the ins and outs of quite a few different policies. Search for Palin on C-span’s website, and look for the entry on Aug. 21, 2006. And before being elected governor, Palin spent some time as the head of a state regulatory commission. If you know nothing of such things, be assured that state regulatory commissions spend a great deal of time on regulatory policy.
Policraticus says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:06 pm

What counter-examples are you talking about? Surely not those unfortunate families with as many fathers as children?

No. I am talking about small families of deep religious faith, which make up the majority of religious families.

I never in my life even heard of a family with more than 5 kids headed by a couple of atheists.

This is a red herring (logical fallacy). Atheism need not constitute the only example. Agnostics and those of lukewarm to dormant belief do just fine.
jonathanjones02 says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Well, one need not to measure by countries as they currently exist to see the patterns, although I don’t see much else to go by for data points across culture in our current time (since WWI) if one were seeking to argue by counterexample.

And “greater the probability to be religious and sympathetic to traditionalistic notions” is an awkward characterization but it captures something real. Eberstadt notes, using Western Europe as an a well-considered example, that the dramatic declines in fertility and family formation started some time before secularization. This runs counter to the more common narrative of the reverse, and it’s a pattern repeated elsewhere.
Policraticus says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Social science 101 here: anecdotes don’t disprove a correlation.

Without need of condescension in return, I’ll remind you that:

1) a single anecdote can be a counterexample;
2) I’m not referring to a single anecdote;
3) an anecdote can be factual;
4) an abundance of facts contrary to a theory of correlation can invalid a theory.
jonathanjones02 says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:11 pm

I am talking about small families of deep religious faith, which make up the majority of religious families.

If the author is correct, over time this “deep religious faith” will lessen, perhaps suddenly and dramatically. We’ve seen this in the blue states of the coasts among the mainline Protestant denominations, which ties in to the affordable family formation theory.
jonathanjones02 says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Just a friendly reminder to please stick to the issue(s) under discussion and try to keep away from anything that could be taken as an insult.
S.B. says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Poli, so far you haven’t given a single valid reason to disagree with Jonathan’s statement that “the more children a couple has, the greater the probability to be religious.” Handwaving references to anecdotes don’t count, even if true.
S.B. says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:36 pm

More evidence:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54700-2004Sep1.html Fertility correlates strongly with religious conviction. In the United States, fully 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say that their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, only 27 percent of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.
ben says:

September 8, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Jonathan didn’t say religious families are predominately large, he said large families are predominiatley religious. The former claim would be absurd, but the latter claim seems obviously true.
love the girls says:

September 8, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Policraticus writes : “I am talking about small families of deep religious faith, which make up the majority of religious families.”

Perhaps it’s worth defining ‘small’. I suspect that small, as in less than four, in the US is more than likely caused by use of birth control.

At St. Peter and Paul Catholic School, in the Denver metro, the number of families with four or more children is about 10 families out of about 200 families with children in the school, we are one of those 10, half of those others I just happen to know, and know that they fall in the orthodox category. Curious how that always seems to be the situation.
love the girls says:

September 8, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Ben writes : “Jonathan didn’t say religious families are predominately large, he said large families are predominiatley religious. The former claim would be absurd, but the latter claim seems obviously true.”

But it can be argued that the majority do tend to be larger than the norm because of the widespread use of birth control.
love the girls says:

September 8, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Johnathan Jones writes : “I think the more children a couple has, the greater the probability to be religious and sympathetic to traditionalistic notions that highly value rootedness and a sense of place. ”

Rootedness and sense of place are intrinsic to a stable society with a proper understanding of the common good, and properly ordered to man’s final end.

Please note, this rootedness can also exist even in the nomadic society which has a sense of its itself, but it cannot exist in a society which does not know itself.
blackadderiv says:

September 8, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Beyond the fact that the local news article ties religious faith and large families together as only an “often” occurrence (which hardly “establishes” anything), one may go so far as to concede that the correlation is well established in Mormonism. That’s not the same as well established universally.

Why the scare quotes? Kinda weird.

Anyway, if you look at the article, you find that it quotes a professor from BYU as to whether the connection of religiosity and fertility is limited to Mormons:

“It’s not just a Utah Mormon thing, it’s a religious thing,” he said, noting devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and the Amish are among those who also tend to have larger families.

“The data show a positive relationship between religiosity and fertility,” he said.

He’s right.

As for the business about counter-examples, if someone were to say “all religious families have lots of children” or “no secular families have lots of children” then pointing out examples of religious families with few kids or secular families with lots of kids would serve as a refutation. But if someone says that religious families tend to have more kids than secular families, that can’t be refuted by pointing to individual examples, any more than pointing out that there are short men and tall women disproves the claim that men tend to be taller than women.
M.Z. Forrest says:

September 8, 2008 at 5:27 pm

A lot of this depends on how you want to define the pool. For example, a lot of folks want to define the orthodox as a population around 40% of a given group, ideally almost entirely of their party. The category of number of children does introduce a degree of objectivity on the question as long as one assumes that number of children desired is determinative. Given the number of non-political people one encounters in church, I would hate to use political belief as a proxy for much of anything.

While birth control does play a significant influence in family size, the single largest factor seems to be age at first birth. Other problems I could foresee would be not controlling for changes in age. For example, the 20-30 demographic tends to be more liberal, but is also a period when families begin. The correlative may just end up being a weak proxy for age.
Policraticus says:

September 8, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Poli, so far you haven’t given a single valid reason to disagree with Jonathan’s statement that “the more children a couple has, the greater the probability to be religious.” Handwaving references to anecdotes don’t count, even if true.

Ah, more of the classic S.B….instead of using logic, just pretend like your opponent said nothing at all. Like Hume said, there are just some people you can’t reason with.
Policraticus says:

September 8, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Perhaps it’s worth defining ’small’. I suspect that small, as in less than four, in the US is more than likely caused by use of birth control.

I don’t know about all families of less than four, but my own family (made up of four) was not “caused” by birth control.

More evidence:

Three or more children puts the set of large families fairly broad. A five person family doesn’t seem to fit the “large” set as, say, an eight person family would. When we get this broad, there is no need to use any sort of set for precision.

Jonathan didn’t say religious families are predominately large, he said large families are predominiatley religious.

Right.

“Why the scare quotes? Kinda weird.”

Not scare quotes. Just quoting you in order not to misrepresent you.

Anyway, if you look at the article, you find that it quotes a professor from BYU as to whether the connection of religiosity and fertility is limited to Mormons

This is an assertion whereas the article argues for Mormons. We must separate the assertion and then proceed to argue for it. It seems arguments for this assertion are woefully lacking in this thread. Any takers? Remember, argue…don’t assert.
blackadderiv says:

September 8, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Not scare quotes. Just quoting you in order not to misrepresent you.

One of the two words you put into quotes was “often.” As I didn’t use that word (nor had anyone else in the thread to that point), I don’t see how you could have been quoting me. But whatever.

This is an assertion whereas the article argues for Mormons.

The article doesn’t argue for anything. It is a news article; not an op-ed. It cites a statistic about the correlation between religiosity and fertility among Mormons and it cites an expert on the subject who says that the same correlation holds true for other religious groups. If, for whatever reason, you aren’t willing to trust the professor’s opinion on the subject, you can look at the paper I linked to above, which provides the data itself. If you don’t find that convincing, then I’m at a loss to think of what sort of evidence you would find convincing.
love the girls says:

September 8, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Policraticus writes : “I don’t know about all families of less than four, but my own family (made up of four) was not “caused” by birth control.”

And my own family of 9 was not religious, with an atheist father and new age mother, but exceptions are not the rule.
S.B. says:

September 8, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Ah, more of the classic S.B….instead of using logic, just pretend like your opponent said nothing at all. Like Hume said, there are just some people you can’t reason with.

No, you’ve been issuing a lot of verbiage, but none of it constitutes a valid reason to believe anything. To repeat, the thesis has been put forward that large families tend to be more religious. The only thing you said in response (in two separate comments) was that there are counterexamples, which I take to mean specific large families you can think of who aren’t religious. But again, anecdotal counterexamples aren’t a valid reason to deny a correlation that is supported by scholarly evidence (indeed, I can’t even imagine what has caused you to be so obstinate on such an intuitively obvious point).

Therefore, yes, it is the case that you haven’t put forth any “valid reasons.” Go back to Social Science 101 before you sneer at other people.
S.B. says:

September 8, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Hey, let’s play “Spot the Logical Fallacy.”

Blogger: There’s a correlation between large family size and religiosity.

Commenter: But wait, I can think of concrete counterexamples!

BZZZZ! One point against the commenter.
Michael J. Iafrate says:

September 8, 2008 at 6:44 pm

I think the more children a couple has, the greater the probability to be religious and sympathetic to traditionalistic notions that highly value rootedness and a sense of place.

“Religious” is an empty term. Plenty of couples with few children are awfully “religious,” whether its of the Christian sort (which isn’t one thing at all) or simply typical american religiosity. The question isn’t whether Palin or whoever is “religious,” but in what way, which god they worship, etc. Obviously many “religions” are dangerous; certainly many forms of Christianity are. Palin is “religious,” but she is dangerously religious.
S.B. says:

September 8, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Here’s the other thing: not only has she nothing to say, when she speaks she attacks Obama using a level of snark and nastiness that I find a little obnoxious.

I didn’t notice you criticizing Obama’s snark and nastiness, such as his claim that McCain won’t follow bin Laden to the “cave where he lives.” Aside from being nasty, that claim doesn’t even make sense, on more than one level. First, Obama is implying that we know the cave where bin Laden lives, but that neither McCain nor anyone else is doing anything about it. Bizarre. Second, what a silly insinuation to make about your opponent . . . what politician (whether McCain or anyone else) would deliberately pass up a chance to snag bin Laden, and be the world’s hero?

It’s just ridiculous; it’s as if McCain said, “Obama says that he wants to protect the environment, but he won’t even reveal the secret to cold fusion” — as if Obama knew that secret, and as if Obama would refuse to take advantage of such a secret.
love the girls says:

September 8, 2008 at 6:54 pm

MZ Forrest writes : “While birth control does play a significant influence in family size, the single largest factor seems to be age at first birth.”

You’re correct, age of birth would also be the other significant reason. I suspect though that as age of birth increases, religiosity decreases because girls who tend to be older when married also tend to be caught up in materialism.

Nice additional factor would be girls who married later but not of their own volition.
Tony says:

September 8, 2008 at 7:22 pm

I personally have an issue with her ambition– knowing her daughter’s condition, she nonetheless accepted the nomination, knowing the whole world would be scrutinizing a 17-year old girl. And surely being VP is not a 9-5 job: who will look after the little special needs child? Who will be the primary care-giver? Her husband?

And what might her daughter’s “condition” be? That she is pregnant with the child of her fiance (with whom she was contemplating marriage before she became pregnant)? This family seems to work through things together. I know it seems like an odd thing to a liberal, but that’s how Catholic families generally behave. My guess is that this was discussed with the young woman and her fiance, and for the sake of babies everywhere, she decided to subject herself to the “jeers and spittle”.

And you seem surprised that the father would assume the role of primary caregiver. Do you subscribe to fixed gender roles? What would your feminist friends think? Todd Palin seems like the perfect catch for a feminist woman (and he was caught by one). He’s almost hyper manly, yet caring with his family. Tough when required and tender when necessary.
blackadderiv says:

September 8, 2008 at 7:37 pm

the 20-30 demographic tends to be more liberal, but is also a period when families begin. The correlative may just end up being a weak proxy for age.

Age is one of the factors controlled for, though according to the linked study the average age of the religious and of the non-religious isn’t all that different.
Daniel H. Conway says:

September 8, 2008 at 7:44 pm

“Perhaps it’s worth defining ’small’. I suspect that small, as in less than four, in the US is more than likely caused by use of birth control.”

Be careful about specific assumptions. Many have the gift of fertility. Others do not. Treat fertility as an unearned gift from God.
Winston D says:

September 8, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Poli, you being very combative about what seems to be a fairly straightforward (and intuitive) correlation. Do you have any studies in mind that contradict the evidence offered?
Morning's Minion says:

September 8, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Give me a break, Tony– if they were Catholic, this shotgun wedding between Ms. Palin and the “I don’t ever want kids” gum-chewing guy would qualify automatically for an annulment. Doesn’t the rampamt divorce culture among the evangelicals not bother you?
Mark Shea says:

September 8, 2008 at 8:43 pm

I know the Republicans are doing their best to claim that the animosity toward Palin is about her family. Sheer nonsense.

Which is why this blog does not exist and there are not 127,000 hits when you google “Sarah Palin” and “retard” (including valuable policy-conscious “Sarah Palin Retard Baby Jokes” that are totally addressed to the serious issues of the day by Obamaphiles who only want Change from the meanness of Rovian tactics). The enemies of the normal in Obama’s camp are the ones who will destroy him. Morning’s Minion’s patented “nothing to look at here” schtick will also help.
Knuckle Dragger says:

September 8, 2008 at 8:57 pm

MM,

Gov. Palin doesn’t have to say anything about abortion – everyone knows where she stands, and she walks the walk.
Franklin Jennings says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:07 pm

“Not only for the obvious reason of the value of chastity over and above the married life, ”

HAHAHAHA!!!

A contributor to a blog offering “Catholic Prespectives” doesn’t even know what chastity is!!!

Let’s just say I hope your wife doesn’t learn you are unchaste…
Katerina says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:11 pm

I think the more children a couple has, the greater the probability to be religious and sympathetic to traditionalistic notions that highly value rootedness and a sense of place.

What about couples who cannot have children?
Winston D says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Katerina,

Couples who cannot have children are an exception to the general pattern of correlation. Just as Poli’s anecdotal observations do not invalidate studies, neither does the existence of couples who cannot have children. Wouldn’t you expect to see a correlation between religious commitment and the number of children? I don’t understand the difficulty with accepting the evidence presented (assuming there are not other studies that contradict this finding).
Franklin Jennings says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:20 pm

“I think the more children a couple has, the greater the probability to be religious and sympathetic to traditionalistic notions that highly value rootedness and a sense of place.

What about couples who cannot have children?”

Who knows? No one is discussing people in my situation, and a careful reader would realize this.
jeremy says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:22 pm

What about couples who cannot have children?
That is a very interesting question. It would be interesting to see the stats on Religious Observance (or conviction) of couples correlated to the number of children each couple had. It would also be interesting to see if there was a changes within each group based on whether more children were desired.
David Nickol says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Gov. Palin doesn’t have to say anything about abortion – everyone knows where she stands, and she walks the walk.

Knuckle Dragger,

The conventional wisdom is that one of Palin’s tasks is to attract women who preferred Hillary Clinton to Obama, and those women tend to be pro-choice. And that, so the theory goes, is why Palin is not stressing abortion. Do you think that is false? And if it’s true, how much of a commitment to the pro-life cause does it indicate?

I would agree that she “walks the walk,” but from the pro-life point of view, how much credit should a woman get for not murdering her own baby? Is it really that heroic?
Knuckle Dragger says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:31 pm

David Nickol,

She is especially heroic since Trig is a Downs baby and Gov. Palin knew it. 90% of these babies are aborted. Here is a recent quote from her:

Q: Your stand on abortion?
A: I’m pro-life. I’ll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.
Source: Q&A with Newsmax.com’s Mike Coppock Aug 29, 2008
love the girls says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:36 pm

David Nichols writes: “how much credit should a woman get for not murdering her own baby?

The same credit she should get for walking and breathing.

___________

David Nichol’s writes : “Is it really that heroic?”

It’s as heroic an act as changing a diaper.

______________

I would have far more respect for her if she quite and went back home to bake cookies and raise her children in a better environment. It’s one thing to be called as a queen is through no wish of her own, its quite another to volunteer as Palin did.
love the girls says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Knuckle Dragger writes : “She is especially heroic since Trig is a Downs baby”

If not killing one’s baby is heroic. Then it follows that killing one’s baby falls within an act of ordinary virtue, and thus is not a sinful act. But killing one’s baby is a sinful act, thus it follows that not killing one’s baby is not an heroic act.
David Nickol says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm

And you seem surprised that the father would assume the role of primary caregiver. Do you subscribe to fixed gender roles? What would your feminist friends think?

Isn’t it the position of the Church that men (fathers) and women (mothers) are not interchangeable? And that motherhood is a special role? And that if women do work outside the home, it is the duty of society to arrange working conditions so that a mother may have the necessary time to take care of her children?

Is there anything in Catholic teaching that suggests it is appropriate for women to be the providers and men to stay at home and take care of the children?

If men and women are interchangeable, then why does the Catholic Church insist same-sex couples should not raise children?

It seems to me the Church still puts a lot of emphasis on traditional gender roles. Up until the Palin nomination, it had been “liberal” Catholics who found the Church’s view of gender roles old fashioned and no longer applicable. Now, however, since the Palin nomination, “conservative” Catholics have become very enthusiastic about feminism and women working outside the home and fathers raising children.

And, of course, now everyone agrees that out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy is just one of those things that happens, and nobody was even surprised to see the “baby daddy” onstage at the Republican National Convention.

It seems to me that conservatives (including conservative Catholics) have jettisoned a lot of “traditional values” for the sake of embracing the McCain-Palin ticket.
David Nickol says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:50 pm

She is especially heroic since Trig is a Downs baby and Gov. Palin knew it. 90% of these babies are aborted.

Knuckle Dragger,

If knowingly giving birth to a Down Syndrome baby is heroic, what kind of law is it that would force women with less strength and fewer resources to do so?
Knuckle Dragger says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:52 pm

love the girls,

If we want good pro-life, pro-family people like Gov. Palin to serve our country, they are going to have to make sacrifices. She has a very supportive husband and family to help with the children. Also, as VP she will have the convenience of living near where she works.
RR says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:55 pm

I think many will assume that Palin is Catholic.
Tulipa says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Sarah Palin and her brood ooze life and vitality and promise for the American future. It was very heartwarming to see the “big” sister spit shine little Trig Van Palin. Sarah’s fecundity and street smarts and natural beauty make her a feminine ideal. I’ll bet a lot of contracepting woman view her with wonder and mixed emotions–a twinge of jealousy I would venture. Her husband is hunky and masculine and my gut tells me he’s a really nice guy. Sure her family has its warts, but it is noble that Bristol is getting married. Another noble option would have been to give the baby up for adoption if she had her sights set on college, career and didn’t think the biological daddy was right for her. The family did not embrace the culture of death and clandestinely murder the developing child, Praise the Lord. The Palin’s are a little Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, as are all happy families.
Knuckle Dragger says:

September 8, 2008 at 9:59 pm

David,

The abortion of a Down Syndrome baby (or any other baby) is pure evil. The government’s first obligation is the protection of the lives of its citizens (including the unborn). Government should also provide financial assistance to families with few resources who are blessed with a Down Syndrome baby.
M.Z. Forrest says:

September 8, 2008 at 10:07 pm

“…families with few resources who are blessed with a Down Syndrome baby.”

Duty used to be sufficient cause to persevere under such burdens. I don’t get the euphemistic treatment on the matter. It is for the very reason that Down Syndrome and other maladies present significant burdens that the greater community is called upon to offer assistance.
Morning's Minion says:

September 8, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Sometimes I despair for this country. Tulipa: “Ooze life and vitality and promise for the American future”– yeah, that’s a policy to run. To bad that she has no actual policies to help families. Too bad that she has no policies to encourage child rearing and discourage abortion. Too bad this supposed pro-life model can’t even bring herself to utter the “a” word. And we even get the “gut” saying the husband is a really nice guy– that same gut that gave us Bush, and that same gut that got Bush conned by Putin. God help us all. Let’s juts forget the pat eight years. Let’s just repeat the tragegy as farce– trashy reality TV farce.
Morning's Minion says:

September 8, 2008 at 10:14 pm

“I didn’t notice you criticizing Obama’s snark and nastiness, such as his claim that McCain won’t follow bin Laden to the “cave where he lives.”

I believe that is a reference to Bush’s decision (supported by Cheney) to outsource the Tora Bora operation to the locals while they prepared the US military for the invasion and occuption of Iraq– something McCain supported. In short, Bush let Bin Laden escape.
Michael J. Iafrate says:

September 8, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Palin is the perfect VP choice because she is exposing the complete hypocrisy of the Republican party and right-wing Catholics.

Gov. Palin doesn’t have to say anything about abortion – everyone knows where she stands, and she walks the walk.

Of course, just “walking the walk” isn’t enough for most pro-life Catholics. They don’t simply want candidates to “walk the walk,” they want Roe overturned. It isn’t enough to take the Hauerwasian “let’s focus on making sure the Church says no to abortion, and accepts ‘unwanted’ children.” They want political results. And when Palin is silent on abortion and simply “walks the walk” in her “private life,” she is suddenly their hero?! Please.

Another “tension” she exposes has already been addressed above: she is admired for her “ambition” and the fact that she will be spending precious little time with her children, especially her youngest, is overlooked or downplayed. So many Republicatholics are quick to judge “ambitious” women and would prefer them to “stay at home,” sticking to clear gender roles, yet Palin is suddenly their “feminist” hero. Anyone who points out the costs that will come with her ambition is “sexist.” (Being called “sexist” by a Republican… hilarious!)

Yet another “tension” is the beating Republicatholics gave Obama for the rhetoric of his former pastor. As much as Obama attempted to distance himself explicitly from his pastor, Republicatholics persisted in holding Obama personally responsible. Yet when Palin’s church and pastor were exposed for the dangerous theology that they exhibit, suddenly political candidates are not responsible for what their pastors say, even though Palin has publicly said similar things and has not at all distanced herself from that sick theology.

As the campaign drags on, we will see more of these double standards: more overlooking of Palin’s silence on abortion (for the sake of gaining the Clinton vote), more all-of-a-sudden Republican embrace of “feminism” for the sake of political gain, and dismissal of the importance of Palin’s warped theology. And I think these double standards will certainly come back to haunt the McCain-Palin ticket.
David Nickol says:

September 8, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Knuckle Dragger,

If the aborting of a Down Syndrome baby is pure evil, then how can not aborting a Down Syndrome baby be a heroic act? Love the girls is asking the same question, and I know from previous exchanges with him that there’s nobody more pro-life on Vox Nova. What other situation can you suggest where the only choice you have is between heroism and pure evil?

It makes perfect sense to me that, from the pro-life point of view, having a baby rather than aborting it should not be considered heroic. It should be the choice that anyone and everyone faced with such a situation should make.

From the pro-life point of view, Sarah Palin should stand out not because she is particularly good, but because others in her situation have been particularly evil.
catholicanarchy.org™ » Why Palin is the perfect Republican VP choice says:

September 8, 2008 at 10:45 pm

[...] the following statement by a commenter at Vox Nova, responding to the charge that Palin has been stunningly silent on the [...]
S.B. says:

September 8, 2008 at 11:02 pm

I believe that is a reference to Bush’s decision (supported by Cheney) to outsource the Tora Bora operation to the locals while they prepared the US military for the invasion and occuption of Iraq– something McCain supported. In short, Bush let Bin Laden escape.

So much misinformation packed into one paragraph. First, Obama didn’t say he was referring to Bush. Second, Obama’s statement was forward-looking. Obama said that McCain “WON’T [not "didn't"] even follow him to the cave where he lives” — as if this were a current or forward-looking decision on McCain’s part, rather than a reference to something that supposedly happened in 2001. Third, the Tora Bora affair happened in November 2001. What’s your evidence that the US military was preoccupied with an Iraq invasion that wouldn’t happen for another 16 months?
jonathanjones02 says:

September 8, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Yet another “tension” is the beating Republicatholics gave Obama for the rhetoric of his former pastor.

Really? Not only was Wright not mentioned at the convention, he has hardly been mentioned in the GOP-supporting blogosphere since going into (seemingly self-imposed) exile in his mansion. And this is not to say that he couldn’t be an issue: there’s plenty of video of Obama praising him to the skies and speaking of their close 20 year mentor relationship, and there’s plenty of video and audio of Wright saying completely nutty things, like the AIDS conspiracy theories and….(from Newsday)
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/03/rev_wrights_italian_job_hold_t.html
“(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him… The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.” After calling Jesus’s crucifixion “a public lynching Italian style” executed in “Apartheid Rome,” he goes on to claim that white supremacists run the U.S. government. “The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge” ect. ect.
Knuckle Dragger says:

September 8, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Michael,

She gave one speech and you say she is silent on abortion. If you think she will to through this election and not comment on abortion you’re kidding yourself. She will be asked this week in her interview on ABC and she will proudly state her pro-life views. All the people in this country who truly believe that life is sacred will admire her for it.
Knuckle Dragger says:

September 8, 2008 at 11:27 pm

David,

Given the growing lack of respect for life in America today, it seems that having even a healthy baby is heroic. It’s sad but it’s becoming reality.
Michael J. Iafrate says:

September 8, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Really? Not only was Wright not mentioned at the convention, he has hardly been mentioned in the GOP-supporting blogosphere since going into (seemingly self-imposed) exile in his mansion.

Yes, “really.” Did I say anything about the convention? Are you seriously going to dispute my statement that Republican Catholics gave Obama a hard time about his pastor? You seriously do not see a double standard as far as how Palin has been treated for her views? Or is it just because you AGREE WITH her screwed up version of “Christianity”?

“(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him… The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.” After calling Jesus’s crucifixion “a public lynching Italian style” executed in “Apartheid Rome,” he goes on to claim that white supremacists run the U.S. government. “The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge” ect. ect.

What is your concern with these quotes? That he makes a joke about the noses of Italians? (I’m Italian. Yawn.) That he says the U.S. gov’t is run by racists? Are you simply offended or do you have anything to dispute the claim? You, of all people, concerned about Wright’s supposed racism? Do look in the mirror sometime.
Knuckle Dragger says:

September 8, 2008 at 11:38 pm

M.Z.,

I’m saying that if Roe is overturned and a state decides to outlaw abortion, I would be for providing government assistance to these Downs parents of limited resources. Others may not agree and say it should be left up to the family, neighbors, charities, etc. Fine by me, at least the baby hasn’t been slaughtered in the womb.
jonathanjones02 says:

September 8, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Are you seriously going to dispute my statement that Republican Catholics gave Obama a hard time about his pastor?

If you present a GOP quote or charge regarding Wright, I’ll assess it. I think Obama should have been asked about his relationship to Wright, and if he agreed with the nuttier of his many public statements. This hardly happened. And I’d say the exact same thing about Palin. I’d also say it’s likely we would disagree about what is and what is not a nutty statement from this prominent racial-ist pastor.

You seriously do not see a double standard as far as how Palin has been treated for her views? Or is it just because you AGREE WITH her screwed up version of “Christianity”?

If I agreed with the Assemblies of God view of religion, I would not be a Catholic.

You, of all people, concerned about Wright’s supposed racism? Do look in the mirror sometime.

You look in the mirror and ask if you are well serving those I expect you would claim to care about by cheapening the word racism. Then, if you wish to suggest I am a racist, step up to the plate and provide your evidence and make your charge explicit.
Michael J. Iafrate says:

September 8, 2008 at 11:56 pm

I think Obama should have been asked about his relationship to Wright, and if he agreed with the nuttier of his many public statements.

Too late now, eh? Where were you when all of this was taking place? Could you not have defended Obama then? Why now, when it is actually Palin you seek to defend?

I’d also say it’s likely we would disagree about what is and what is not a nutty statement from this prominent racial-ist pastor.

You are probably right. I have yet to see a “nutty” statement by Rev. Wright. I suppose “nutty” is mild compared to other characterizations a white man could make about the statements of a black preacher, right?

If I agreed with the Assemblies of God view of religion, I would not be a Catholic.

Palin’s screwed up version of Christianity does not map exactly onto the views of the Assemblies of God. Countless Catholics have fallen for the same warped theo-politics as Palin. Do you count yourself among them?

You look in the mirror and ask if you are well serving those I expect you would claim to care about by cheapening the word racism.

It is not up to you or me to say whether I am cheapening the word racism.
jonathanjones02 says:

September 9, 2008 at 12:14 am

I don’t get your hostile and sneering posture. I really don’t. But I suppose it’s great if you don’t care about the quality of your interactions.

Too late now, eh? Where were you when all of this was taking place? Could you not have defended Obama then? Why now, when it is actually Palin you seek to defend?

Ironic given your occasional charges of over-simplification, dualism, and reductionism. This isn’t hard: it’s perfectly acceptable to ask candidates who are asking the public for a lot of power about their associations. All candidates, in all times.

You are probably right. I have yet to see a “nutty” statement by Rev. Wright. I suppose “nutty” is mild compared to other characterizations a white man could make about the statements of a black preacher, right?

I actually sympathize with Wright when he talks about innate average differences between blacks and whites, because those exist and we don’t want to acknowledge any such thing in our public discourse. But he’s said quite a few nutty things. To me, the craziest has to do with AIDS being an invention the government uses to kill black people. This is ignored, but I think it’s important because of the high rate of infection within that community and the importance of prevention education.

Palin’s screwed up version of Christianity does not map exactly onto the views of the Assemblies of God. Countless Catholics have fallen for the same warped theo-politics as Palin. Do you count yourself among them?

Do you count me among them? If not, why bring this up in our back and forth?

It is not up to you or me to say whether I am cheapening the word racism.

Charged words should be thrown around cheaply, especially in silly little games of status posturing. But, as always, I’m willing to engage if you or anyone else wants to parcel out what is and what is not racist. That’s an important discussion too infrequently had.
Michael J. Iafrate says:

September 9, 2008 at 12:37 am

innate average differences between blacks and whites

Please elaborate.

But, as always, I’m willing to engage if you or anyone else wants to parcel out what is and what is not racist.

Let’s start with “innate average differences between blacks and whites.”
love the girls says:

September 9, 2008 at 1:00 am

Michael J Iafrate : “Let’s start with “innate average differences between blacks and whites.”

There is no difference, whites and blacks are identical. No one can no more tell them apart than a pair of identical twins.

_______________________

Taking ‘innate’ to mean a material accidental difference.

Blacks on average have darker hair colour. Whites on average have lighter hair colour.
jonathanjones02 says:

September 9, 2008 at 1:00 am

Sure.

Given the recent Olympics, take physicality. Are you aware that over the last seven Olympics, from 1984 – 2008, the vast, vast, vast majority of the finalists in men’s 100m – 56 to be exact – have all been of West African descent? (This dominance is also present in the 200m.) And that there is a proportional drop-off as distances lengthen? There have been a few studies on this, but not much, and I’ll think we’ll see more.

Take disease. Ask any specialist about average black-white differences. We see these in a variety of ailments, including Hodgkins, artery trouble, strokes, various cardiovascular ailments, cervical cancer, sickle cell anaemia, ect. Large amounts of money are spent all the time studying these differences, and we learn more every year.

Wright has talked about the differences of learning styles, and this is also worth further study.
love the girls says:

September 9, 2008 at 1:17 am

Johnathan Jones writes : “Given the recent Olympics . . . ”

You don’t need to explain.

I’m sure that Michael Iafrate doesn’t have any more trouble than anyone else distinguishing innate average differences between blacks and whites. The words blacks and whites signify those differences, and Michael Iafrate is well aware of those signifying differences.
Gerald A. Naus says:

September 9, 2008 at 8:53 am

West Africans ran fast on short differences, East Africans on long distances. Asians are the most agile and whites have the greatest upper body strength. So, everyone’s got something. How did that come up ? Not to mention that among caucasians, there are big differences. In California, I’m a giant.

As far as defending that creepy preacher is concerned – I wonder if we’ll see Michael Iafrate defend Louis Farrakhan next ? Or hear him talk about Wright’s ‘screwed up Christianity’ ? In general, what happened to ‘our separated brothers and sisters’ on Vox Nova ?
blackadderiv says:

September 9, 2008 at 8:56 am

I take it that Obama’s line about the cave was a reference to the statement Obama made last year suggesting that he would send troops into Pakistan. He was, in other words, trying to out-hawk McCain, which is a scary thought, actually.
David Nickol says:

September 9, 2008 at 9:28 am

Newsweek raises the question about how aggressive Palin has been regarding abortion as governor of Alaska.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157541
Gerald A. Naus says:

September 9, 2008 at 9:48 am

Another liberal first, worrying about being aggressive on abortion :-P
At the end of the campaign all liberal journalists will have turned into Rad Trads.
Michael J. Iafrate says:

September 9, 2008 at 9:48 am

Or hear him talk about Wright’s ’screwed up Christianity’ ? In general, what happened to ‘our separated brothers and sisters’ on Vox Nova ?

I’m consistently impressed with your inability to distinguish, Gerald. I’m not sure where you got the idea that all types of “Christianity” are created equal, nor am I sure exactly where your sudden “ecumenical” spirit comes from. Why is it that because I think Palin’s distorted Christianity is false, I should then disapprove of Wright? Are you not able to look at the details of two different forms of Christianity and make judgments about them based on what you see? Is no one who calls him or herself Christian able to be out of bounds? Does your sudden ecumenical generosity also extend to Fred Phelps?

The problem, perhaps, is that you cannot think past the TV media’s level of religious analysis which has been constantly talking about the “issue” of Palin’s “Pentecostalism.” (CNN for example reported on her “Pentecostal” views as if all Pentecostals think like Sarah Palin. They don’t.) Perhaps therefore you (and the gentleman I was conversing with in another thread about this issue) think it is Pentecostalism that I have a problem with. Not at all. I have a problem with nationalistic, idolatrous Christianity which infects just about every Christian church in the united states (as do homophobic, sexist, and racist “Christianities”). This is not an issue of “ecumenism” as much as you would like to summon the power of that word. It would be nice if you could think a little harder than CNN. At least give it a try.
Michael J. Iafrate says:

September 9, 2008 at 9:53 am

Another liberal first, worrying about being aggressive on abortion :-P
At the end of the campaign all liberal journalists will have turned into Rad Trads.

There you go again, Gerald. Thinking like CNN.
S.B. says:

September 9, 2008 at 10:09 am

Blackadder — that makes a lot more sense. Thanks. Of course, I’d bet MM would never admit it. After he’s invested so much energy in claiming that Obama > McCain because Obama would be less likely to invade foreign countries, it would cause him too much cognitive dissonance to admit that Obama is sneering at McCain for not promising to invade Pakistan! (Even I know that it might be a bit touchy to invade an unstable nuclear power that is constantly in hostile relations with its neighbors, e.g., India). I expect MM to promptly change the subject, probably with a tu quoque along the way.
Gerald A. Naus says:

September 9, 2008 at 10:10 am

Oh come on, the sudden concerns of liberal writers are rather amusing.

The Catholic church got over racism in this country, a few decades ago, of course sexism and homophobia are still around, if one views exclusion of women from leadership/ordination and the church’s view of homosexuality as such. I don’t care about the former, no one is forced to be Catholic. The latter I particularly care about when the bishops, like here in California, campaign against gay rights.

Alaskan Pentecostals handle caribous, btw.

Ah, if only all people were Unitarian Universalists. The worst that could happen is that they’d come burn a question mark on your lawn.

I don’t know any “Assembly of God” people, nor can I keep all the sects in the USA apart. I imagine it might be scary to attend. I’m a fan of Palin’s mainly because she sticks it to Obama. McCain is no holy roller, so that’s comforting.
love the girls says:

September 9, 2008 at 10:11 am

Michael Iafrate writes : “Christianity which infects just about every Christian church in the united states (as do homophobic, sexist, and racist “Christianities”).”

Homophobic? As in recognizing that homosexual acts are sinful?

Or do you deny that homosexual acts are by nature sinful?
__________

Sexist? As in recognizing that God made man and women different? And that their roles in society are different according to that difference.

Or do you deny that God made men and women differently?
Gerald A. Naus says:

September 9, 2008 at 10:29 am

Sure, men and women are different, men commit almost all the crimes. Women do better in school and college. Men are more likely to commit suicide. Most ‘deadbeat’ parents are ‘deadbeat dads’. Clearly, women should be in charge :-)
Mark DeFrancisis says:

September 9, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Major League Baseball’s superstars are now predominantly Central and Southern American.

I guess this has to with their innate differenes, huh?

Your racial stuff is laughable and without substance….
jonathanjones02 says:

September 9, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Mark,

I look foward to the time when you are either willing or able to address this important topic substantively, with more light than heat.
Mark DeFrancisis says:

September 9, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Jonathan,

Substantively?

How many times have we ridden this merry-go-round?!!

You make it seem as though you are making claims bolstered by reason, in whatever manner. But you are so outside mainstream, respectable academia and its methods on this one, and you should know it.

Please realize thatI respect you personally and enjoy your other writing very, very much, but cannot understand this unfortunate, unbecoming glitch in your thinking.

Vox Nova