In his article "God Will Provide---Unless the Government Gets There First," Wilcox examines the trend towards secularism in the US. He first attributes it to the lower marriage rates, noting that religious participation is often catalyzed by family life. This seems to be a valid point based on Falwell’s emphasis on family values. Wilcox then points out that there’s another imminent threat to religious participation levels---the government. Under Obama’s plans for larger government welfare programs, church charities and programs will be more extraneous and people will be less likely to feel compelled to get involved with a church organization in order to help society.
In the Civil Rights Era, discrimination led African Americans to turn to religion for community and support in their crusade for equal rights. Likewise, when people are experiencing hard times, they turn to God and the religious community as a means of emotional and financial support. If the government attempts to keep the poor at higher standards of living, religion will be a less important solace. This is not to say that the government should not follow through with plans of increased welfare simply because it risks diminishing the importance of religion---that is a matter to be argued when discussing the pros and cons of faith-based initiatives.
Wilcox duly notes that many are drawn to religion by faith alone, but I think he is correct in predicting that increased welfare could have adverse effects on already decreasing religious involvement. Even if some people initially come for the faith, there are others that may stay for the faith, but wouldn’t have come in the first place but for the support. Of course, whether or not religious involvement is decreasing is also up for debate. According to Wald and Calhoun-Brown, religious involvement in the US has remained relatively stable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I think Katie has a point in saying that some people turn to religion to get through hardships in life. However, taking into account Wald and Calhoun-Brown's assessment of religious involvement remaining "relatively stable", I believe that people incorporate religion in all cases. In times of adversity, people turn to religion because it is safe and constant, but adversely, in times of triumph, these same people continue to turn to religion to thank God for their good fortune. Therefore, Obama's enactment of new welfare-based policies will not diminish the importance of religion because those who have faith generally keep it through both accomplishment and distress.
Wilcox’s analysis of the reason for secularization strikes me as suspect. I suppose it makes sense to say that when people are happy and do not need to seek succor, then they do not rely on a sensation of God’s love. But, in actuality, are Obama’s welfare proposals going to lift a sufficient number of people from below the poverty line to such a degree of wealth as to remove any significant financial burden from their shoulders to make even a noticeable difference in national surveys of faith? Let’s hope so, but I doubt it.
Wilcox points to studies showing that Sweden, Norway and Denmark all have large welfare states and lower religious participation. The other common factor among these nations, which Wilcox ignores, is that they have the some of the best early education statistics. Historically, secularism has come not from decadence of the rich, or bitterness of the poor, but from laboratories. Thus, because Obama promises good things for America’s scientific community, I agree with both Katie and Wilcox that religious influence will continue to decline, but I would suggest that the reason has little to do with the economy.
That being said, I don’t think religion will decline enough to mark a new era in the story of Christian faith. That will not occur without considerable further human evolution, since, as Darwin observes, “Love of godhood is a result of intellectual organization”—that is, a propensity towards having faith is hardwired into the human head.
I think Melissa brings up an interesting point about how people would still turn to religion in gratitude, but I’m not sure this is necessarily true. In order for the people to feel that God has lifted them up, they must have had some propensity for religion in the first place. Therefore, relying on gratitude will not bring in many new religious members because in order to feel that they owe something to God, they have probably already been in a situation where they had to turn to religion for support.
I have to agree with David that, realistically, Obama’s plan will not help people enough to eradicate the need for religious support, but I still think Wilcox makes an interesting point. I also hadn’t really considered the effects of other aspects of Obama’s presidency on religious participation, but David is right in saying that they cannot be ignored.
Post a Comment