U.S. ideology stable, “culture trench warfare” ahead?
The U.S. Democratic Party has gained a larger following over the past two decades but America’s ideological landscape has remained largely unchanged over the past two decades, according to a new report by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. You can see the analysis here.
What is of interest for readers of this blog may be the implications of this “cultural trench warfare” — with neither side gaining much ground from the other — for red-hot social issues such as abortion rights and the future prospects for both the Republicans and the Democrats.
“The Democratic Party’s advantage in party identification has widened over the past two decades, but the share of Americans who describe their political views as liberal, conservative or moderate has remained stable during the same period. Only about one-in-five Americans currently call themselves liberal (21 percent), while 38 percent say they are conservative and 36 percent describe themselves as moderate. This is virtually unchanged from recent years; when George W. Bush was first elected president, 18 percent of Americans said they were liberal, 36 percent were conservative and 38 percent considered themselves moderate,” the report, released late on Tuesday, says.
On the divisive issue of abortion rights, the report, using survey data from October, said 57 percent of Americans believed it should be legal. Breaking opinion up by ideology, it found that 43 percent of conservatives were in favour of it being legal while 77 percent of self-described liberals held that view.
This is not surprising — there are many Americans who regard themselves as economic or “tough on crime” or national security conservatives who still support abortion rights. What may surprise some is that 19 percent of liberals feel it should be illegal. These could be people influenced by Catholic social teaching or other trends who regard themselves as liberal on most issues but not this one.
For all the talk of an emerging evangelical center, the report says that: “White evangelical Protestants are the most conservative Republicans: 79 percent describe their political views as conservative, compared with 17 percent who say they are moderate and just two percent who call themselves liberal.”
Pew report looks at media coverage of faith in U.S. election
The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and its sister organization The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life have just released a study on the media coverage of religion in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. A summary of the findings with links to the whole report can be found here.
“Religion played a much more significant role in the media coverage of President-elect Barack Obama than it did in the press treatment of Republican nominee John McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign, but much of the coverage related to false yet persistent rumors that Obama is a Muslim,” Pew said.
It added that there was scant scrutiny of the role of personal faith in the shaping of the candidates’ political values with the exception of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
The moose-hunting Alaska governor ignited the Republican Party’s conservative Christian base with her evangelical faith and her strong commitment to what many in the party see as “family issues” such as unwavering opposition to abortion rights.
Among its other key findings:
- Press narratives devoted to issues of faith accounted for four percent of the coverage of the general election campaign — less than the economic crisis at nine percent but equal to that devoted to race.
Of course there was not enough scrutiny and the reporting was far off-balanced. Both when Obama ran against Hillary and when he ran against McCain. The only thing I can compare it to is when OJ was cleared of the Murder charge, but still found responsible for their deaths in a Civil court.
The media and Obama told America what was important to them and rather than think for themselves, the majority of Americans voted for the least experienced, most rhetorical “Politician” of modern times. Who clearly knew more about the political views of his Mentor for 20 years than he was willing to admit to… making Obama a LIAR with Little or no Conscious.
Where was the media’s focus on what it required to be schooled in Indonesia when Obama was a student? – Absent because the requirement was you had to be Muslim to attend school during the period he was enrolled.
People, including myself were tired of Bush and wanted change, but I did not sacrifice my principles to vote for an out-and-out LIAR, which was Obama’s response to every CRISIS that fell upon him during his candidacy – and America may likely have to pay for turning their eyes, but so far he seems to be surrounding himself with a Cabinet that just may save us yet.
Quite the “Typical” POLITICIAN playing to the SOLD-OUT MEDIA Audience…
WashPost column: “Armband religion killing Republican Party”
Has religion turned into a vote loser in U.S. elections? In covering the U.S. presidential campaign, most analysts took religion as an important vote-getting factor and asked which candidate was appealing most to which religious group. Much was made about how the Democrats were more comfortable with “Godtalk” on the trail.
Now Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker has asked whether religion has turned into a serious vote loser for the more faith-friendly party, the Republicans:
“The evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh. Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party … the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows. In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle.”
Is it time for the Republicans to rethink what Parker calls their “preaching to the choir?” Is there a lesson for the Democrats here?
OK People,
Not one person ever became president that G-d did not appoint himself.
Exactly who was elected has been appointed, and who is elected now, was supposed to be elected. G-D don’t loose elections LOL. Obama wiil be good for the economy, but he will make a great mistake, and this mistake will bring a wrath on America, like we have never seen. Obama, will not back Israel, and we WILL see the effect of that DECISION come to pass. Just like when we ( the US ) put pressure on Israel to divide their land for Palestinian peace. That was biblical, do not divide his (G-d’s) land and his people. We are already seeing, what those decisions have brought upon us as a Nation…
Ask me where I got this Information. I’ll be glad to show ya.
“Religulous” — a film call to atheist arms
Comedian and talk-show host Bill Maher has issued the latest “call to atheist arms” in his recently released documentary “Religulous.”
He wants his fellow non-believers and doubters to “come out of the closet” to counter what he views as religion’s dangerous influence on the world. To do so, he preaches to the converted in “Religulous”, a scathing documentary that skewers Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
The film is part of the “neo-atheist” backlash to the rising influence of religion in public life, following a path recently blazed by a trio of best-selling books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins, a renowned Oxford biologist, has also presented a documentary critical of religion called “Root of all Evil?” on British television.
The Maher film obviously aims to entertain — the audience at the viewing I attended in a suburb north of Dallas laughed almost non-stop through the whole show and a colleague of mine in Arizona reported the same at one he attended. You can see our report here.
But Maher clearly has a political purpose in mind just weeks ahead of the Nov. 4 presidential election between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. The latter picked conservative Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin , a staunch conservative Christian, as his running mate to energize an evangelical base which Maher regards as scary.
Maher notes that America’s religiously unaffiliated population is 16 percent, a number drawn from Pew surveys. He pointedly says this is a larger percentage of the population than several other influential lobby groups such as the National Rifle Association. Hence his call for doubters to “come out of the closet” — a call that other atheist groups and bloggers have been making in recent months.
For an example of this, see The Out Campaign.
I am a complete atheist and agnostic intellectual person but I have to react against this fake documentary that is Religulous. It is a pity that with such an interesting subject, Bill Maher is only talking about himself. I never watched such an arrogant and egocentric interviewer. Never listening to the interviewed, making fun of weak, and accusing Muslim people of being all terrorists. This man is dangerous and has to be destroyed. People of earth, let’s unite against ignorance and let’s forbid this movie. It is not a matter of freedom of expression because it is only a call for hate.
Monthly church attenders swing Obama’s way
Americans who attend church once or twice a month have become a sought after “swing vote” — and they are swinging to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in the run-up to the Nov 4. presidential election.
That is one of the key findings of a new survey conducted by Public Religion Research on behalf of Faith in Public Life, a non-partisan resource center.
It found that, based on religious service attendance, the biggest shift in candidate preferences between 2004 and 2008 was among those who went once or twice a month. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry got 49 percent of their vote in 2004 while Obama is now pulling 60 percent.
But in a reflection of the 2004 race, Obama’s Republican rival John McCain “maintains a significant advantage among voters who attend more frequently, while Obama has a nearly identical advantage over McCain among those who attend less than a few times a month or never,” the survey says.
Among those who attend religious services more than twice a week, the survey found McCain leads Obama 60 percent to 34 percent. Kerry in 2004 garnered 35 percent of that vote.
McCain also maintains a significant lead with white evangelical Protestants, a key Republican base which helped propel President George W. Bush to power. This base has been energized by McCain’s selection of staunch conservative Christian Sarah Palin as his running mate and the Arizona senator leads Obama among them by 68 to 25 percent.
What most people fail to comprehend is that God will judge those who go against the holy word in the bible. We can not obscure His word for our own purpose or to suit our needs and still say we are Christian. So those of you who think its ok to abort an innocent child or that homosexual marriages are ok you will face judgement. Yes as Christian’s we need to look at the overall picture at the situations such as poverty, and the like but we can not turn away from God’s word. If most people would realize that our econmic statis has to do with poor management of these companies by their greedy CEO’s who should bare the responsiblities for the failure. Instead they are rewarded with buy outs or compensation packages that are outragously high for failing, what would they get if they were successful? I don’t even want to imagine it. As a whole our country have turned our backs on God and do whatever we want and think that we will be foregiven because of Christ blood. Well you all are sadly mistaken because going against the Word and continuing to live a sinfull life you will reap what you sow! Not my words but the words from the Holy Bible! Neither of the choices for presidential canidates are a great pick! But I would want someone who isn’t going to allow the degradiation of the morals of our country! so vote Ralph Nader!
Has the faith factor fizzled in the U.S. campaign?
After the 2004 election, the buzz was that religion was a key factor in U.S. election campaigns. It’s come up this year with Barack Obama’s “pastor problem,” speculation about Sarah Palin’s Pentecostal church and several other points. So I thought it was worth getting up in the middle of the night (cable TV had it from 3 a.m. here in Paris) to see what if any role religion played in her debate with Joe Biden.
From that narrow point of view, I could have stayed in bed.
The only interesting point on any of the usually divisive “culture war” issues was the way Palin agreed with Biden that gay and lesbian couples should not be denied legal benefits granted to married heterosexual couples. “No one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties,” she said. Neither supported gay marriage, but that was their stated position already.
With the financial crisis dominating the news these days, there was little chance that these issues would take up much time in the debate. But the fact that Palin didn’t use the wedge issue when it arose was interesting. According to a new study by Beliefnet “moral issues are dramatically less important this year than in previous years – even among the most religiously observant voters.”
So has the faith factor fizzled out in this campaign? Can I get a full night’s sleep when Obama and McCain debate?
Please tell John Becker, who was bitten by Barney Bush, that when reaching out to any dog, large or small, it is wise to crouch lower, and make sure your hand is UNDER the level of the dog’s head. A hand coming down from above is seen as a threat. That could be why Barney bit! Hope the wound heals
Pelosi’s abortion comments provoke Catholic criticism
Catholic leaders in Colorado and elsewhere have been swift to react to comments by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that the Church itself had long debated when human life begins.
“… I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition … St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose,” said Pelosi, seen at left kissing Pope Benedict’s ring during his visit to Washington in April.
In Denver, the venue for this week’s Democratic party national convention due to annoint Barack Obama as its presidential nominee on Thursday, Archbishop Charles Chaput and his Auxiliary Bishop James Conley said in a statement on Monday that Catholic teaching on the subject was unequivocal — abortion is gravely evil — and that “Catholics who make excuses for it … fool only themselves.” Similar comments came from Washington D.C. Archbishop Donald Wuerl.
In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”
Pelosi’s spokesman Brendan Daly responded on Tuesday with a statement saying not all Catholics agreed with the Church’s position on when life began.
While not always mentioned by name, the clerical criticism can also apply to Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, picked as the vice presidential running mate for Obama. Biden is a practicing Catholic who also supports abortion rights and analysts have said he could help woo wavering Catholics into Obama’s fold. But a revival of the 2004 debate over whether such Catholic politicians should be refused communion at Mass could possibly hurt him.
John Kerry, a Catholic who was the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004 , provoked stormy debate in Catholic circles about whether or not a pro-abortion rights politician should be able to receive Holy Communion, a key sacrament of the faith. Several bishops said they would not give him communion and the media staked out churches where he attended Mass to see if he received. In June 2004, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI – wrote to American bishops restating the Church position that a priest must refuse to distribute communion to a Catholic politician who supported abortion rights.
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, ITS MINISTERS AND ITS LAY MEMBERS:Hundreds of thousands of babies are being murdered yearly in this country. Some estimations are as high as 40 million since Roe vs Wade came into play. And what does the Catholic Church and the Ministers at all levels do? Very little.Almighty God deeded to the Church the responsibility of caring for the souls He has created and the Church should hang its head in shame for the complete withrdrawal of its commitment to these souls.Where did the Church and its Ministers fail in its mission? – to hold responsible the people with the power to make laws that allow the extermination of these souls. Why has not the Church met head on with ALL Catholic politicians with this statement, “as a Catholic you believe in its teachings; you cannot pick and choose what you want to accept, meaning you cannot compromise by saying, “I personally oppose abortion but I have to respect my constituent’s feelings, therefore I vote for and respect the right of a woman to choose” – you have a free will and can vote in any manner you wish or support the right to choose, But no longer as a Catholic, because this disregard of the teachings of the Church will lead to excommunication.”Half of the Catholic voters this past election voted for the most pro-choice candidate; many saying, “but he stands for so many other good things”; also saying that you cannot vote for a single issue. Well, without life, nothing else matters, nothing, absolutely nothing. I am quite certain the Church will say that excommunication is a long and drawn out process. I say, baloney; there are babies being murdered daily; suppose we pay attention to them NOW and support their right to life.Everyday that passes and the Church fails to live up to its responsibility to both God and man, it is condemning to death thousands of the Innocents, and I say this to the politicians, “for the few years of power on this earth you seek and enjoy, think of the eternal damnation you may look forward to. May God help you all.” Having said that, one has to wonder how much longer is He going to put up with this insanity? For every infant who is aborted and the Church fails through inaction to prevent it, another nail is driven into the hands of Christ; every time a doctor thrusts a scissors into the skull of a baby to kill it, another spear enters the side of Christ. How many times are we going to crucify Christ? How many times? For in this madness, mankind is destroying the very likeness of God Himself, for He made us all in His image. ACT NOW, as the followers of Christ; follow His will; “what you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto Me.” ACT NOW, please ACT NOW.For the lay Catholics, if you cannot accept the fact that life begins at conception, as the Church teaches, and oppose those who profess that the right to choose is acceptable, than perhaps you should find another church, since the Catholic Church and its teachings are beyond your grasp of tolerance.As to the Minister of the Church; since your inability, or perhaps I should say, your lack of concern, to protect the most vulnerable among us exists in such a flagrant manner, then also accept the fact that not only are you hypocritical, but also devoid of your responsibility, reckless guiding of your flock, and a complete dishonoring of the position you hold and the garments you wear; perhaps a different line of work is in order before even more damage is done.May God enlighten us all to do what is right, rather than what is convenient. The 60’s were the beginning of the age of permissiveness. The Church, wishing to bolster the flock, particularly the young, managed to draw a curtain over the real meaning of the Catholic Faith, the Mass, the true intent of the Faith itself. Instead of staying true to itself, it lowered its principles, therefore negating its true and only mission, to serve God by providing guidance and protection for the very Souls He created, regardless of the status in life they hold.This was a very difficult letter to write since my Church is everything to me; it’s just that I feel so betrayed by its Ministers at all levels and wonder why human life seems to mean so little to those it should mean so much to. Just imagine if 40+ years ago, the Church had put its foot down on Catholics, and politicians in particular, regarding the taking of life; imagine how many lives could have been saved. When we are standing before God and He asks the question, “How did you protect the very souls that I created?” How are you going to answer?
Did Saddleback “faith quiz” cross church-state divide?
Did Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum with John McCain and Barack Obama violate the separation of church and state? Was it right for a pastor to ask U.S. presidential candidates about their belief in Jesus Christ or their worst moral failures? Will the success of the Saddleback Civil Forum mean that major televised interviews or debates about faith will become a regular fixture in American political campaigns?
I didn’t think questions like this got enough of an airing in U.S. media before Saturday’s event. The fact that Warren made it such an interesting evening made me think the fundamental question — should there be a televised “faith quiz” at all? — would be crowded out of the public debate. The initial reactions angled on the winner/loser question or the “cone of silence” issue seemed to bear this out. But some commentators and blogs are now zeroing in on the deeper question.
In the New York Times, columnist Willian Kristol (Showdown at Saddleback) applauded the event and said: “Rick Warren should moderate one of the fall presidential debates.” That says a lot about the quality of the usual televised debates but little about the church-state question. Ruth Ann Dailey’s op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette put her answer about the church-state question right in the headline: At Saddleback, the wall stands firm.
On the other side, Kathleen Parker wrote in the Chicago Tribune that Candidates’ church chat erodes U.S. principles. DeWayne Wickham of USA Today wrote the Next president need not be the vicar of Saddleback.
Hat tip to the Washington Post On Faith blog for probably the most comprehensive selection of views for, against and in the middle. This is not a simple question and it was good to see so many thoughtful responses.
As religion editor, I naturally have a strong professional interest in seeing religion discussed in public. I also think a candidate’s religious views are relevant when they clearly shape his or her political stands. So I’m not against asking such questions in principle. But a session like the Saddleback Civil Forum raises some fundamental questions about the role of religion in politics and where lines between the two should be drawn. There is no hard and fast rule. Anyone who reads religion news from around the world regularly, though, has surely seen enough cases of politics interfering too much in religion or religion interfering too much in politics to take the issue of church-state relations lightly. Just saying “it can’t happen here” isn’t good enough.
Since television loves to repeat a successful formula, it’s a good bet we’ll see more of these sessions in campaigns to come. With that in mind, here are a few questions I hope to see debated before the next “God quiz” rolls around:
A retired Naval Office, I have been a member of a Southern Baptist Church sice 1953. For Rick Warren, a fellow Southern Baptist, to compose a list of questions that merely reflected the talking points of McCain was inexcusable and reflects extrememly poor judgement on his part..
Does McCain see real faith factor in Russia-Georgia conflict?
Recognising when religion plays a part in a military conflict can be a tricky business. Its role can easily be overemphasized, underplayed or misunderstood. Having covered several such conflicts myself, I was curious when I saw Ted Olsen’s post at Christianty Today about how John McCain stresses Georgia’s Christian heritage when talking about its conflict with Russia. When Russian forces rolled into Georgia in support of pro-Moscow separatists there, McCain’s reaction statement noted that Georgia was “one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion.” In his televised discussion with leading evangelical pastor Rick Warren on Saturday, he said “the king of then Georgia in the third century converted to Christianity. You go to Georgia and you see these old churches that go back to the fourth and fifth century.”
History is fascinating but McCain’s use of it here begs the question whether there is an actual faith factor in this conflict or just in his presentation of it. Russia, after all, is also a traditionally Christian nation, but he made no mention of that. After the fall of communism there, the Russian Orthodox Church has resumed its traditional role there — as has the Georgian Orthodox Church in the Caucasian republic after state-sponsored atheism lost out there too. There are no obvious doctrinal disputes that divide them.
Church-to-church relations also seem reasonable. According to the Russian news agency Interfax, senior officials of the two churches spoke by telephone last week and “declared their common peacemaking position and readiness to cooperate in this field.” Patriarchs of both churches have called for a ceasefire and condemned the violence among fellow Christians. “Orthodox Christians are among those who have raised their hands against each other. Orthodox peoples called by the Lord to live in fraternity and love confront each other,” Russia’s Primate Alexiy II said. “What is most important (is that) we (are) united with Christian faith and must live peacefully without blood,” Georgian Catholicos Patriarch Ilia II said.
Since Orthodox churches are organised nationally, each side naturally reflects in some way its own country’s political view of the crisis. But even in his protest letter to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, Ilia’s only reference to religion was his lament that Orthodox were killing each other.
Other religious authorities — Pope Benedict after an Angelus prayer and the World Council of Churches and Conference of European Churches in a joint statement — have also mentioned the two countries’ common Christian heritage in their calls for a ceasefire but not implied it played any role in the conflict.
On his Crunchy Con blog, Dallas Morning News columnist Rod Dreher — a convert to Orthodoxy — branded McCain’s comments as “total and shameless pandering to Evangelicals. As if Russia isn’t a Christian nation. As if Russia hasn’t been Christian for over a thousand years. As if Christianity had anything to do with this conflict.”
Beliefnet editor-in-chief Steven Waldman saw McCain signalling three possible messages to evangelical voters: (1) I think having Christianity as an official religion is a fine idea in general, (2) This is just like the Cold War when the forces of Christianity are at war with the forces of Atheism or (3) I view the protection of Christians from attack worldwide as an important goal.”
Saint, could you please clarify your reference to “which troops exactly Putin sent into Georgia”? It sounds like you see a religion angle there but it’s not clear what it is.
New book on Republicans adds to U.S. “culture war” debate
A new book on the U.S. Republican Party sets out an agenda that its authors argue will help weld working class voters — who have bounced between political allegiances over the decades — to the party as the foundation for the next conservative majority.
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream, by Ross Douthat, a senior editor at The Atlantic, and Reihan Salam, an associate editor at the same magazine, is already making some waves.
What readers of this blog may find most interesting is some of its comments on religious conservatives, a key Republican Party base, and its contribution to the growing debate about America’s “culture wars.”
The authors take square aim at Thomas Frank’s 2004 book What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, an influential work that has become widely regarded as the leading liberal critique of the Republican Party’s blue-collar strategy.
In a nutshell, a big part of the Frank thesis is that social issues such as abortion are useful distractions from stagnating wages and job lay-offs which lead blue collar workers to vote against their economic interests, ie, for the Republican Party.
“… the ‘social issues’, from abortion and marriage law to the death penalty and immigration, are not just red herrings distracting the working class from their economic struggles, as liberals have insisted for the better part of forty years,” Douthat and Salam write.
“Rather, they’re at the root of working class insecurity. Safe streets, successful marriages, cultural solidarity, and vibrant religious and civic institutions make working-class Americans more likely to be wealthy, healthy, and upwardly mobile,” they write.
So you want your government to solve your problems…
perhaps have less kids, perhaps move closer to your job, perhaps get a new job, perhaps stop moving into a new home every 10 years, perhaps don’t finance everything you “own”,
perhaps don’t buy that ipod you “need” or that designer jacket you “must” have.
When you start being responsible for your own affairs and still can’t afford to feed your family or pay for health care, then you can whine…
I think you’d be surprised how non-hardworking you really are. And to think, there are millions just like you, expecting the government to solve your problem.
Just a little secret…you are continuing to allow illegal immigrants into your country at an alarming rate. Your infrastructure can not handle these people. The kicker is that they are working harder and for less money than you and they aren’t paying taxes…so they aren’t replacing the infrastructure they are using and people like you are losing your job to competition both domestic and abroad and asking for handouts or aid from the government…Seems crazy…Unless you demand a different approach to immigration, the jobs will go to those who work for less, the taxes that you once paid will stop flowing to the government and any aid you expect because you just can’t seem to make ends meet will never come. I am alarmed at the ignorance.
There is no such thing as perpetual prosperity. Downturns must happen when the infrastructure available reaches a peak. You see this in any overcrowded populace on every scale of every income and education level. Not enough food, not enough road, not enough space, not enough jobs, etc….These are inevitable.
Fix your own problems and the government will only be necessary to determine policy and organize. They will not ever have to overstep their constitutional bounds and fund projects independently. Like I always say, if you can’t go to bed feeling good about what you did today, then find out why and fix it. If you can sleep at night without a second thought about what you did today, you are a lazy fool. Even the hardest working people are always learning, always bettering themselves…Even they are human. You will never destroy the human weakness for corruption, but you can curb the spread of such ideals by working hard and having some responsibility for yourself, your decisions and actions, and your family. You must have a vested interest in the continuance of the so called american dream, and in understanding the ‘dream’, you must realize that the deam is in fact an unachievable goal, for if you ever achieved such a lofty goal, you would be failing yourself and those around you.
-
Resident FaithWorld Expert
-
I am looking forward to reading more from you in the future. And I so much appreciate your information