I started thinking about where they live, hence that last post. They all live in relatively tony suburban locations where people mostly behave according to those stifling, Victorian standards. I've been wondering where they would live if they really wanted to sample a burg where the Victorians have been utterly routed. I found a list of small cities and a list of large cities they might want to try.
The expected locales are all there - Detroit, Camden, East St. Louis and so on. #2 on the small city hit parade was a place called Benton Harbor, MI, where single parent households are 77.5% of the population. Just on a whim, I bopped around the Interweb Tubes looking into this lovely metrop. Much to my surprise, I found that the Victorians were having to step in and bail out the libertines.
But as of this month, they (Benton Harbor elected officials) are literally powerless, and hold no authority to make any decisions. Not even on potholes.The place is completely out of control to the point where they are now the housepets of the state. My, what a mess they've left on the carpet!
The city is now run by Joseph L. Harris, an accountant and auditor from miles away, one of a small cadre of “emergency managers” dispatched like firefighters by the state to put out financial blazes in Michigan’s most troubled cities.
In Benton Harbor, where, records show, finances have spiraled downward in a morass of commingled funds, puzzling accounting and unchecked spending, Mr. Harris has been handed sweeping new powers under recent state legislation that emergency managers like him say was needed to remedy dire situations.
Meanwhile, the cultural scene in Benton Harbor is lively and creative, just as you'd expect when enlightened personal freedom takes hold and all that grim Victorian prudery is ripped away.
Listening to these artists talk, I'd like to ask my progressive friends on Facebook to stand up and support free expression and acceptance of all lifestyles by committing themselves to pay their fair share and cover whatever tax burdens these guys can't. Unless, of course, you think these guys are going to shell out the roughly $12,000 in per capita taxes it takes to run the Federal government. (State and local can be dealt with later).
Freedom has its price.
15 comments:
I don't know what (if anything) this actually means, but it did seem odd:
According to this site, in Benton Harbor proper there are 51 churces. Of these, there are 20 Baptist churches, a smattering of other denominations, and zero Catholic churches.
For comparison, the population within 5 miles of where I live is about 12,000, and there are evidently only 17 churches in that area (mostly Lutheran and Catholic). So Benton Harbor has more Baptist churches per person, than we have *total* churches per person. And this is far from an irreligious town.
It looks to me like Benton Harbor certainly has enough religion that you would think they could maintain "Victorian morals", but maybe the Baptist churches are far less effective for this than other churches?
Whoops, I dropped a line from that previous comment: The census population of Benton Harbor proper is only 10,038.
Churches are buildings, just like police stations. The number of such buildings is probably not a good indicator of the behavior of the populace. If I had some time, I'd pick some quite town in, say, Nebraska, and see how many churches they have there. My bet is that there would be almost no correlation between the number of buildings called "churches" and the behavior of the people.
Addendum:
It looks to me like Benton Harbor certainly has enough religion
As a Catholic, we are taught that the people are the church, not the buildings. I question your assertion that Benton Harbor has enough religion. To my definition, this is most certainly not the case.
One more thing, Tim. If you went to Benton Harbor and built 84 Mathnasium franchises, would you then be able to say that it was obvious the city's problems could not be traced to a lack of mathematical knowledge?
"Churches are buildings, just like police stations. The number of such buildings is probably not a good indicator of the behavior of the populace."
That could easily be true, especially in a city where the population has been plummeting due to people moving away - I agree that it is possible that all those churches are starved for members and nobody actually goes to them any more.
Still, churches don't build, maintain, and staff themselves. The fact that they exist, means that *somebody* felt strongly enough to build them and keep them running. So their presence does mean *something*, it's just a question of exactly what.
I have a nitpick on your final comment, "shell out the roughly $12,000 in per capita taxes it takes to run the Federal government."
The link you provide is to a year-old posting. Today's number is probably higher than $12,000.
And that figure is for government spending, not revenues (taxes). The per capita taxation is a lot lower because we're running huge deficits.
Still, churches don't build, maintain, and staff themselves. The fact that they exist, means that *somebody* felt strongly enough to build them and keep them running
Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? It's like people wanted to embark on missionary campaigns, but can't quite get the natives to sign on.
Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? It's like people wanted to embark on missionary campaigns, but can't quite get the natives to sign on.
I think its more likely that the particular churches are simply in decline. I've lived places where the population has shifted enough so that a large number of the churches had barely barely functioning congregations. They don't close because there are barely enough people to keep them going. Alternatively, the population may have shifted from traditional denominations to non-denominational churches. Some of the non-denominational churches near us service over 10K people in a weekend, while others never get past the low single digits.
Kelly, that's a great point. It goes along with the statistical data that shows that our current libertine self-destruction is relatively young - younger than the construction of those churches, perhaps. We've only been doing this full-on self immolation for 40 years or so.
If lack of religion is truly the root cause of so many of the problems our society faces, shouldn't it be the case that the most irreligious nations in the world are also the ones with the most problems, lowest quality of life, etc.? Because it seems that, in many cases, the exact opposite is true.
John, all religions aren't the same so I'm not sure what comparisons you mean. Also, in terms of big, industrialized nations collapsing, it's the atheist nations that have struggled the most with that. See also: Union, Soviet.
Yeah, but there are also plenty of examples of irreligious nations that are doing just fine, e.g. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc.
And are you implying that the Soviet Union collapsed precisely because it lacked religiosity in general, or your religion in specific?
I'm a little leery of drawing conclusions about my country from others. Demographically and culturally, we're quite different. Back to the point of the post, it seems as though the results of the libertine experiment can be found locally. If you prefer a different set of samples, try reading Life at the Bottom by Dalrymple, who is an atheist.
Coming back to this post a while later, I find no reply from John Travolta. As expected.
Post a Comment