PDA

View Full Version : Religous Extremists Will Inherit the Earth




stu2002
06-23-2010, 05:08 AM
by John Derbyshire on June 22, 2010

Did you know that Osama bin Laden has twenty-five children? And that his Dad had fifty-four? (Osama seems to be number 17.) Bin Laden Sr. was careful never to have more than four wives at a time, though, divorcing older wives in order to marry younger ones, thus staying within the proper Koranic bounds. Like his son, he was a pious man, his great worldly success notwithstanding.

Fifty-four kids! Piety will do that for ya. It is a commonplace observation that religious populations are more fecund than irreligious ones: and that within religions, it is the most devout and most fundamentalist subgroups that have the highest fertility. A lot of us have been wondering how the demographic consequences of all that will play out across the coming decades. Will secularization and attrition contain the swelling numbers of the devout? Or will the religious inherit the earth?

Eric Kaufmann’s new book, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, explores the issue. Because Kaufmann is a British academic, and his book has so far been published only over there, it follows British “shall” usage rather than American “will,” posing in its title the question Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?

Kaufmann got my attention with a previous book, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. There he explored the “dual consciousness” of Americans—the tension between our awareness of ourselves as an originally Anglo-Protestant ethny (with some admixtures of course) and the Enlightenment universalist humanism of our founding documents. Kaufmann deftly describes how, through the middle decades of the 20th century, that tension was resolved at last by a repudiation of ethnic American-ness. Americans in their private lives embraced expressive individualism, while political and educational elites promulgated the doctrine that ours is a “proposition nation” open to all ethnies.

That repudiation was followed by the logically consequent triumphs of multiculturalism, affirmative action, mass Third World immigration, romantic xenophilia, and other manifestations of Euro-ethnic self-negation.

(Kevin MacDonald, the Judaism-as-a-group-evolutionary-strategy guy, took on Rise and Fall on VDARE.com last year. MacDonald’s view is that Anglo-Protestant America did not commit suicide, as Kaufmann claims, but was murdered by you-know-who. Kaufmann made a spirited reply which in my opinion gets the better of the argument. For my American Conservative review of MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, see here.)

“The acute conflicts will in any case be not between Muslim and Christian, Jew and Arab, or religious and secular. They will be between the intensely devout on the one hand, and the nominally religious or irreligious on the other.”


Kaufmann brings the same good analytical sensibility to his new book. He addresses the title question region by region: the U.S.A., Islamia, Europe, Israel. There is not much good news for secularists, nor even for liberal and moderate believers. Secularism is at present advancing steadily in the U.S.A., for example, but mostly at the expense of moderate congregations with birth rates close to those of the secular. Neither group is anything like demographically competitive with fundamentalist Protestant sects like the Quiverfull movement.

In the Gospel Community Church of Coxsackie, New York, the pastor has eight children, the assistant pastor eleven and parishioner Wendy Dufkin, to take just one example, thirteen.

Not quite up to bin Laden standards, but impressive none the less. And as newer groups like this establish themselves, older ones like the Amish and Mormons maintain their demographic vitality and low rates of attrition.

So it is elsewhere. Israel was, at its founding, quite aggressively secular, the intensely religious Haredim a mere trace element—one, furthermore, that regarded Zionism as a form of idolatry.

The founders of the new Jewish state considered the Haredim a fading relic, but they worried that anti-Zionist Haredi agitators would sway the Great Powers towards the Arab side…

Hence the many civic exemptions and privileges enjoyed by the Haredim. They were a mere relic, their numbers small—what did it matter if (for example) they were exempted from military service? As late as 1977, religious deferments numbered just 800. In 2007 they were 55,000—one in nine of the eligible age cohort. The social and political strains caused by swelling Haredim numbers are reshaping Israel. That the Haredim are easily out-breeding Israeli Arabs is a point in their favor, from the point of view of secular Israelis, but a small one.

One piece of good news is that the myth of “Eurabia”—a Europe with Muslim majorities by mid-century—is not supported by rigorous demographic analysis. “Most large Western European countries will be between 10 and 15 percent Muslim in 2050, though Sweden may approach 20-25 percent.” Bad enough, but not as dire as the predictions of the Eurabia propagandists. Even this forecast assumes that current rates of immigration will continue; but the recent electoral advance of Geert Wilders’ party in the Netherlands throws that assumption into question, pushing the Eurabia specter even further away.

Kaufmann’s book makes clear that the acute conflicts will in any case be not between Muslim and Christian, Jew and Arab, or religious and secular. They will be between the intensely devout on the one hand, with their Total Fertility Rates of four point something or five point something, and the nominally religious or irreligious on the other, with TFRs of one point something.

The secular-Jewish Kaufmann does not believe that fundamentalism can be stopped. His answer to the title question is yes, the religious shall inherit the earth. What an astonishing development in human affairs! Cultural historian A.N. Wilson (God’s Funeral, The Victorians) has pointed out that if we could transport an educated mid-19th-century European to our own time, nothing would astonish him more than the survival of religion.

Looking into the future, what is doubly astonishing, if Kaufmann is correct, is that the religion dominating the world of our grandchildren will not be the subtle intellectualism of Christian seminaries—of a Tillich, a Niebuhr, a Küng. It will be the literalist-fundamentalist obscurantism of Muslim Salafis, Jewish “Ultras,” Young Earth Creationists, and Mormon splinter sects. In a world dominated by these closed-minded babblers, what place will there be for literature, science, free inquiry, or freedom of any kind?

God help us! Though of course, if fanatical devotion is what He wants, he’s more likely to help them.

http://www.takimag.com/article/religous_extremists_will_inherit_the_earth/

lynnf
06-23-2010, 05:47 AM
think there's something wrong with that?

lynn (religious extremist)

jmdrake
06-23-2010, 06:07 AM
So it is elsewhere. Israel was, at its founding, quite aggressively secular, the intensely religious Haredim a mere trace element—one, furthermore, that regarded Zionism as a form of idolatry.

The founders of the new Jewish state considered the Haredim a fading relic, but they worried that anti-Zionist Haredi agitators would sway the Great Powers towards the Arab side…

And this is bad how?

In fact, this entire article is full of fail. It starts off fearmongering over "Osama babies". But then halfway through he turns his paranoia against evangelical Christians (can't have any more Ron Paul's or Chuck Baldwins can we?) and even *gasp* the Amish? Ummm....when's the last time any Amish person anywhere hurt anybody? *crickets chirping*

The author also worries about attrition rates. Oh those horrible Amish and Mormons. Their kids are less likely to grow up and rebel and binge drink and use drugs and end and have sex without being married and get pregnant and have and abortion and end up in prison. The new world order needs more slaves to feed the prison-abortion-industrial complex!

Back to the Haderim. Lots of irony there. A state set up on the principle of religious apartheid (until 2008 Jews who converted to Christianity couldn't immigrate to Israel) having it's religious apartheid principles undermined by the most devote adherents of that religion. And the defenders of zionism say its not racism because Judaism is a religion not a race. But you have "secular Jews" (oxymoron?) worried about those who actually follow the religion? Plus America's middle east policy is (today) largely shaped by "Christian zionists" following the twin fallacies that question over ownership is settled because "God gave them that land" and the more modern "left behind" theology of "144,000 Jews will bring salvation to the world". I wonder what many of them would think once if it ever sunk in that the Jews that are most likely to agree with them on issues of abortion, human sexuality, traditional marriage and the ten commandments are also the Jews least likely to support their Christian zionist views? Oh the irony!

Last point. What does the author actually want to do about this so called "problem"? Have all male adherents of any religious group thrown into the Nile? Kidnap little Amish kids so they can be properly raised by the Bill Mahers of the world? Force everyone into public schools so the population can be properly "re-educated"? Or just encourage secularists to quit having so many abortions? (Side note. Where I live the black population is on a slight downward trend with more deaths than live births. The white population is on a slight upward trend. The hispanic population based on birth rate alone is going through the roof. The racist witch Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, seems to have achieved her goal. But she didn't count on Catholic hispanics overcompensating for abortions among blacks.)

Anyway, this just goes to show that secularists are every bit as paranoid as religious zealots.

Cowlesy
06-23-2010, 06:50 AM
Well the Derb is a non-believer, but he usually has good book recommendations. Hopefully they release the book in the United States at some point.

sevin
06-23-2010, 06:52 AM
I see his point. If people with religious tendencies have the most children, then it's likely that with time there will be a higher and higher percentage of religious people in the world. This is how the Mormon religion grew so quickly--through reproduction. I think he's concerned that in the long run we will have more theocracies than republics in the world. A valid concern.

ChaosControl
06-23-2010, 08:56 AM
Well then have more kids if you're so worried about the religious out producing you.

silentshout
06-23-2010, 10:01 AM
Just because very religious people have more kids, doesn't mean their kids will remain religious as adults, or be the type that dream of living in a theocracy.

erowe1
06-23-2010, 10:04 AM
I object to Derbyshire pretending he's not a religious extremist.

MelissaWV
06-23-2010, 10:18 AM
Just because very religious people have more kids, doesn't mean their kids will remain religious as adults, or be the type that dream of living in a theocracy.

This.

The children of religious parents are certainly exposed to it, but I'm not entirely sure that if I were one of 54 kids, I would be preoccupied with being "just like dad."

Krugerrand
06-23-2010, 10:21 AM
How many kids did Mother Theresa have?

sevin
06-23-2010, 10:38 AM
Just because very religious people have more kids, doesn't mean their kids will remain religious as adults, or be the type that dream of living in a theocracy.

True, but that tendency is in their genes so it's more likely.

MelissaWV
06-23-2010, 10:41 AM
True, but that tendency is in their genes so it's more likely.

Please, oh please, tell me you're joking?

I do think there's a mild genetic component, in that people who throw themselves entirely into things do seem to run in families, but the "thing" they throw themselves into can change pretty crazily from generation to generation. It's a bit like how people tend towards addictive personalities. One generation might stop at alcohol, one might swerve towards cocaine, and another might decide to gamble.

However, I don't think "religion" runs in the genes.

jmdrake
06-23-2010, 06:09 PM
I see his point. If people with religious tendencies have the most children, then it's likely that with time there will be a higher and higher percentage of religious people in the world. This is how the Mormon religion grew so quickly--through reproduction. I think he's concerned that in the long run we will have more theocracies than republics in the world. A valid concern.

*sigh* First off the term "theocracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive. Iran is an Islamic republic. Republic simply means rule of law and religious law is still law.

Second, as I pointed out earlier when is the last time you heard of an Amish person hurting ANYBODY? In fact I don't think the Amish even get involved in politics. And while Mormons are politically involved (i.e. Mitt Romney), they aren't exactly a violent bunch either.

As I already pointed out, and noted in this article the religious apartheid state of Israel is supported by secular Jews and opposed by religious Jews. So much for your "theocracies are caused by the overly religious" argument.

For that matter, America itself was much more religious at its founding than it is today. Is America more of a republic or less of a republic than it was in 1787?

Also as MelissaW pointed out, the idea that religious affiliation is genetic is just plain silly. But let's assume that you're right. If it is, and if the "religious species" is about to overrun the "secular species" than what does that say about "survival of the fittest"? Darwinists done by their own theory of natural selection. Oh the irony! :p

Seriously though. The kind of religious bigotry promoted in the article isn't becoming the Ron Paul movement. I don't stay up at night worrying about the number of "Muslims" moving to the country as the Glenn Beck groups apparently do. I don't think we need a "final solution" for the Jews. And I certainly don't worry about how many fundamentalist Christians there are. A big part of the Ron Paul 2008 campaign was reaching out to Christians. He certainly wasn't about fearing their existence and birth rates.

Dr.3D
06-23-2010, 06:13 PM
How many kids did Mother Theresa have?

She must have had at least one, after all, she is a Mother.

Vessol
06-23-2010, 06:40 PM
Stupid article, but I have to add that religion has been used by the State for many purposes and continues to be used for that. Religion was founded by the State for control purposes.

sevin
06-23-2010, 08:30 PM
Please, oh please, tell me you're joking?

I do think there's a mild genetic component, in that people who throw themselves entirely into things do seem to run in families, but the "thing" they throw themselves into can change pretty crazily from generation to generation. It's a bit like how people tend towards addictive personalities. One generation might stop at alcohol, one might swerve towards cocaine, and another might decide to gamble.

However, I don't think "religion" runs in the genes.

I didn't mean that religion itself runs in genes but rather a tendency to throw oneself into things, like you say. But you're right, it doesn't mean they'll throw themselves into religion; instead they could get involved with a certain philosophy, political movement, etc. So yeah, good point.


*sigh* First off the term "theocracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive. Iran is an Islamic republic. Republic simply means rule of law and religious law is still law.

Second, as I pointed out earlier when is the last time you heard of an Amish person hurting ANYBODY? In fact I don't think the Amish even get involved in politics. And while Mormons are politically involved (i.e. Mitt Romney), they aren't exactly a violent bunch either.

As I already pointed out, and noted in this article the religious apartheid state of Israel is supported by secular Jews and opposed by religious Jews. So much for your "theocracies are caused by the overly religious" argument.

For that matter, America itself was much more religious at its founding than it is today. Is America more of a republic or less of a republic than it was in 1787?

Also as MelissaW pointed out, the idea that religious affiliation is genetic is just plain silly. But let's assume that you're right. If it is, and if the "religious species" is about to overrun the "secular species" than what does that say about "survival of the fittest"? Darwinists done by their own theory of natural selection. Oh the irony! :p

Seriously though. The kind of religious bigotry promoted in the article isn't becoming the Ron Paul movement. I don't stay up at night worrying about the number of "Muslims" moving to the country as the Glenn Beck groups apparently do. I don't think we need a "final solution" for the Jews. And I certainly don't worry about how many fundamentalist Christians there are. A big part of the Ron Paul 2008 campaign was reaching out to Christians. He certainly wasn't about fearing their existence and birth rates.

I think you're taking all this too personally. I don't have anything against Christians and I don't necessarily think them reproducing more will lead to theocracies, only that it's possible.

I guess what I'm saying is understand the author's point, I think he makes an interesting argument, his concern is valid, but it remains to be seen whether he is right.

jmdrake
06-23-2010, 09:01 PM
I didn't mean that religion itself runs in genes but rather a tendency to throw oneself into things, like you say. But you're right, it doesn't mean they'll throw themselves into religion; instead they could get involved with a certain philosophy, political movement, etc. So yeah, good point.



I think you're taking all this too personally. I don't have anything against Christians and I don't necessarily think them reproducing more will lead to theocracies, only that it's possible.

I guess what I'm saying is understand the author's point, I think he makes an interesting argument, his concern is valid, but it remains to be seen whether he is right.

I was careful (or thought I was careful) to say the article was being paranoid. I try not to paint any RPFers with a broad brush these days, though I'm not always successful. And sure, anything's possible. But I'm faulting the article for its (in my opinion) glaring holes and appeals to emotion. And it's not simply a "Christian" thing for me. I feel toward this article the same way as I feel toward the 9/12ers Matt was talking about who were trying to stop a Mosque from being built because they thought the "Evil Muslims are going to take over the U.S." I think any philosophy that is sound shouldn't be afraid to compete in the free marketplace of ideas. Worrying about the birthrates of the other guys seems like fear to me. But maybe I just don't understand.

justinc.1089
06-23-2010, 11:23 PM
My brother and I grew up in a religious home, which a lot of people would probably describe as a religious "extremist" or "fundamentalist" home...


Neither one of us are even very religious really.


In fact, I am the least religious person out of all my family and friends.


So a religious couple having a lot of kids doesn't necessarily mean "religious" people will become more common than "non-religious" people.


Besides, if you look back at history, we used to have more religion than we do now so the trend seems to be moving away from religion, not towards it. (I'm not saying if thats good or bad, so if you're a serious religious person or a serious athiest you don't need to take offense or disagree with me or anything).

tasteless
06-24-2010, 12:25 AM
I haven't seen the movie, but from what I heard this is kinda like the plot of Idiocracy is it not?

Fox McCloud
06-24-2010, 02:12 AM
Please, oh please, tell me you're joking?

I do think there's a mild genetic component, in that people who throw themselves entirely into things do seem to run in families, but the "thing" they throw themselves into can change pretty crazily from generation to generation. It's a bit like how people tend towards addictive personalities. One generation might stop at alcohol, one might swerve towards cocaine, and another might decide to gamble.

However, I don't think "religion" runs in the genes.

no joke...this is even a debate amongst evolutionists--and IMHO a justified one.

In one corner you have those who want to say that natural selection controls just about everything and is nearly all governed by genes (Daniel Dennett for example).

Others are very critical of evolutionary psychology (Gould) and have suggested that evolutionary psychology is incorrect and a waste of time and that many traditions, behavior, tendencies can just as easily be carried on via cultural conditions, observations, and how people interact.

If I were an evolutionist (I'm not), I'd be sympathetic to the latter and not the former, but that's me.