In A Nutshell

Why does the U.S. spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined? Why is the current administration talking about creating new nuclear, chemical, biological and genotype-specific weapons? Why are we in Iraq? Is it all about the oil?

Here it is in a nutshell, with the numbers. The world production (and consumption) of oil is currently about 80 million barrels per day, of which the U.S. consumes 20 million barrels per day. It is widely believed that oil production will never rise much, if any, above current levels - the oil fields are being depleted, we're not finding new oil fields, we just can't pump it out any faster. Oil consumption cannot rise above current levels.

The oil consumption of China, with its 1.3 billion people, is only 5.8 million barrels per day. But Chinese people want the same standard of living we have in the U.S. They want cars, they want modern agriculture, they want all the goods that Americans enjoy. To get that, they will have to consume the same amount of oil per person that we do. That would increase Chinese oil consumption to 90 million barrels per day, more than the entire world is currently producing, and likely more than the world can produce.

Is China going to remain at its current standard of living just so that we can keep our current standard of living? Doesn't seem likely, does it? What will China do to get that oil for itself? What will we do to keep it for ourselves?

Although China will be America's biggest competitor for the world's oil, other countries will want their share of the oil, too. There are 1.1 billion people in India, who currently consume only 2.2 million barrels per day. When the citizens of India raise their standard of living and their oil consumption to the levels we are used to, they will consume about 75 million barrels per day, just a little less than total current world production. Will they be willing to remain at their current standard of living just so that we can keep our standard of living? What will India do to get that oil for itself? What will we do to keep it for ourselves?

So far, I've only mentioned the two most populous nations of the world. But China and India combined are only a third of the world's population. If everybody in the entire world raises their standard of living, and thereby their oil consumption, to our levels, the planet will require 444.5 million barrels of oil per day. We don't have it, and we're not going to have it.

I ask again, why does the U.S. spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined? Why is the current administration talking about creating new nuclear, chemical, biological and genotype-specific weapons? Why are we in Iraq? Is it all about the oil? What do you think?

I am a Christian. And I Am Angry

I am a Christian. And I am angry.

I am angry about abortion and gay marriage. Why? Because so many Christians have been led to believe that abortion and gay marriage are the most important issues facing us today. Because so many Christians have been led to believe that a politician's stands on abortion and gay marriage are all one needs to know in order to make one's voting decisions. I am angry because so many politicians have chosen to use abortion and gay marriage as "wedge" issues to get themselves elected while ignoring other issues that should be of concern to all Christians. I am angry because we have focused on abortion and gay marriage to the exclusion of any other issues.

I am angry about AIDS. I am angry that so many Christians seem completely unconcerned about the 3.1 million people who died of AIDS during 2004. I am angry that we are more concerned with preventing the use of condoms than preventing the deaths of human beings. I am angry that we have stood idly by while as many as 20 million children have been orphaned when their parents died of AIDS, and that we continue to stand idly by while AIDS makes orphans of over 2 million children every year, a new AIDS orphan every 14 seconds. As Christians, we should all be angry about this, and we must act now to bring about change.

I am angry about poverty. I am angry that one of every 8 persons in the wealthiest nation in the world - the United States - lives in poverty. I am angry that nearly one quarter of the world's population, more than a billion human beings, lives on less than a dollar a day. I am angry that half the world's population, more than 3 billion human beings, lives on less than two dollars per day. As Christians, we should all be angry about this, and we must act now to bring about change.

I am angry about hunger and starvation. I am angry because every day, forty thousand human beings - 15 million every year - starve to death; three-fourths of them children under five. I am angry that one third of all children in developing countries suffer from malnutrition, causing stunted growth and cognitive development, and decreased resistance to disease. I am angry that, in the United States, the fatty, grain-fed meat we eat is killing us with heart disease, while the grain we feed to our livestock could feed a billion human beings. As Christians, we should all be angry about this, and we must act now to bring about change.

I am angry about homelessness. I am angry that in the United States, we may have as many as one million of our people homeless at any given time; as many as 3 million homeless at some point during the year. I am angry that, worldwide, there are more than 100 million human beings who are completely homeless, and nearly a billion more - one-sixth of the world's population - who are squatters in houses or on land they do not own, or are residents of refugee camps or temporary shelters. As Christians, we should all be angry about this, and we must act now to bring about change.

I am angry that we are spending 500 billion dollars this year on bullets and bombs, as much as the defense budgets of the entire rest of the world combined. I am angry that we could - and should - be spending a large portion of this money on healing the sick, clothing the poor, feeding the hungry, and sheltering the homeless, and yet we do not. As Christians, we should all be angry about this, and we must act now to bring about change.

I am angry that we have allowed ourselves to be fooled by self-serving politicians into voting based on only one or two issues. I am angry that we have ignored our responsibilities as Christians to help those less fortunate than us, and I am angry that we have failed to elect leaders who will do those things that we as Christians know are the right things to do.

Let us all be righteously angry, as Christ was angry and grieved at the hardness of our hearts (Mark 3:5), and let our anger lead us to action.

Peak Oil and Food

"The End of Oil." "Peak Oil." We hear these terms increasingly these days; on the TV news and in the papers. But what do they really mean? What is "Peak Oil"? When will it happen? How will the end of oil affect us? What will our civilization look like when we run out of oil? I have given this some thought, and it's not a pretty picture. I will talk briefly on what "Peak Oil" is, then look at one of the many ways in which it will affect us: our food supplies.

"Peak Oil" can be looked at in two different ways: the peak of discovery of new oil supplies, or the peak of oil production. When more oil is discovered, we have additional reserves to fill our energy needs. When the rate at which we discover new oil fields is decreasing, and we are no longer finding new oil supplies at the rate at which we are consuming oil, we say discovery has peaked. Then we develop the new oil fields we have found, drilling additional wells and pumping the oil out of the ground. As the oil field is depleted, the oil becomes more difficult to recover, and the production rate "peaks", then drops. The production rate gradually decreases until eventually no more oil can be removed from that particular oil field. The rate of discovery of new oil reserves in the United States peaked in the 1930's, and oil production in the United States peaked in the 1970's. World-wide oil discovery peaked in the 1960's. When will world-wide oil production peak? Some scientists believe it already has, others feel it has not peaked yet, but will soon. In any case, there is wide agreement that peak production of oil worldwide will occur before the end of this decade. Once that point is reached, unless we drastically reduce our demand for oil, the oil production rate will not be enough to keep up with the demand, and shortages will occur. Prices will rise. Nations will compete for what oil remains, even going to war over oil. Eventually there will be no oil available to anyone, at any price - the End of Oil.

I would now like to consider the impact that reduced oil supplies and the eventual end of oil will have on our food supplies, and how that might affect our civilization.

Our current agricultural methods are, for all practical purposes, a process of turning oil into food. Food production is dependent on oil at every stage between preparing the ground for planting and serving the food at our dinner tables.

Let's examine the part oil plays in the production of wheat, for example. The farms that grow wheat are highly dependent on oil. First, an oil-powered tractor is used to plow the field, then the same oil-powered tractor is used to plant the seed. While the wheat is growing, agricultural chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides will be applied, perhaps several times. Many of these agricultural chemicals are derived from oil, and again, they will be applied with oil-powered tractors.

At the end of the growing season, the wheat will be harvested by those same tractors, still running on oil. It will then be loaded into trucks or railroad cars for transport to the mills for processing. Trucks and trains, of course, both require oil. After the raw wheat is processed into breakfast cereal, bread, or flour, the finished product is packaged and loaded into oil-powered trucks or trains for delivery to the stores, and offered for sale to consumers like you and I. We then drive our oil-powered cars to the stores, buy the food products we need, and drive home in our oil-powered cars.

So what do we do when there isn't enough oil for our tractors, fertilizers, pesticides, trucks, trains and cars? How many of us are able to supply our own food needs? How many of us grow significant quantities of food in our gardens, or keep cows in our backyards? What are we going to eat?

Let's carry this a little further, by having a look at what the lack of oil-provided energy will mean to us in another area. Suppose that you live in a northern city where winters are cold. Suppose further that your house is heated with oil, and your electricity is generated at an oil-fired powerplant. It's the middle of winter, and, having no oil, you have no electricity and no heat. Your children are freezing to death. What would you do to keep your children from freezing to death? At first, maybe you'd cut the trees in your yard and burn them to keep warm. When your own trees were exhausted, maybe you'd cut the trees in the local park. And after that, then what? Cut and burn your neighbor's trees? Tear down your neighbor's house and burn it to keep your children from freezing to death? What would your neighbor do to keep you from tearing down and burning his house? Kill you? What would you do to keep your neighbor from tearing down and burning your house to keep his children from freezing to death? Would you kill him?

While you're pondering that, remember that your children aren't just freezing to death, they're starving to death, too. How are you going to feed them? You've already burned your neighbor's house to keep your children warm; will you now kill your neighbor to feed your children? Would your neighbor kill you to feed his starving children? Are you sure?

OK, you're not willing to burn your neighbor's house to keep your children warm, and you're not willing to kill your neighbor to feed your starving children. Instead, you're going to move to another region with a warmer climate, a long growing season, and plenty of rain for your crops - your new "paradise". First of all, how are you going to get there? Drive there in your car? No oil. Take the bus? No oil. Take a train? Sorry, no oil. Fly there in an airplane? Again, no oil. And what will happen if you do arrive at your destination? Do you think others won't have the same idea? How many refugees do you think that the natives of your new paradise will allow in? What if they are already overburdened with refugees when you get there? Will they send you away? Kill you to keep you from spoiling their paradise? Will you kill them and forcibly take your own piece of paradise? What if you already live in "paradise"? What will you do when the refugees show up in your paradise?

If you're not sure what you'd do in these circumstances, I suggest you watch the news on TV tonight, or read the evening paper, and find the solutions others have found to their problems of overcrowding and insufficient resources. You'll find that they are doing exactly the things I've described here.

And what are we going to do about it? I don't know what we actually will do, but I know what we must do: decrease our consumption of oil and other resources. Demand that car manufacturers make more fuel efficient cars. Require recycling. Insist that our government begin research to develop alternative energy sources, research on a scale not seen since the "Manhattan Project" to develop the atomic bomb or the "Apollo Project" to put a man on the moon. Or plant gardens in our backyards, get a couple of cows, and stock up on guns and ammunition. Think about it. What's it going to be?

George W. Meets His Maker

I recently received a "forward" from an old
friend speculating on what the arrival of Osama
bin Laden at the Pearly Gates might look like. This
led me to speculate on what God might have to say
when George W. Bush shows up at the Pearly Gates.
Here's my “artist's conception” of what God might
say to George W. Bush upon his arrival at the
Pearly Gates:



George, let's have a look at your record, and
see whether you've complied with my commandments.
First of all, George, you started wars, attacking
those who had not attacked you, nor had they any
capability to attack you. Don't you remember me
saying, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they
shall be called sons of God"? (Matthew 5:9) You
have not been a peacemaker, George; you have been
a warmaker. How then can I call you my son?

In order to justify your wars, you lied about
weapons of mass destruction and connections with
terrorists where there were none. But I said, "
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor." (Exodus 20:16) Why did
you lie about these things?

Many of my children died in the wars you
started: your own people, those who defended
against your attacks, innocent men, women and
children. As governor of Texas, you executed 152
of my children. As President, you oversaw the
first executions of Federal prisoners in nearly 40
years. How then can you say you have obeyed my
command, "Thou shalt not kill"? (Exodus
20:16)

I have commanded, "Thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his
maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor
anything that is thy neighbor’s." (Exodus
20:17) When I say, "nor anything that is thy
neighbor's", George, that means his
oil, too.

I have said, "Lay not up for yourselves
treasures upon earth" (Matthew 6:19) and "the love
of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy
6:10), yet you and those you associate with do all
manner of evil to enrich yourselves, and to enrich
your friends at Halliburton, Bechtel and Carlyle.
Did I not say, "It is easier for a camel to go
through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to
enter into the kingdom of God"? (Matthew 19:24)

I have commanded that my people watch over
and care for my creation. (Genesis 2:15) Yet you
allowed industry to pollute the air, the land and
the sea. You allowed the extinction of the
creatures I placed on the earth. You
destroyed the wilderness for the profit of
yourself and those like you. When nearly all of
my children agreed to cut emissions that caused
the warming of my creation, you refused to
participate. Why did you not care for my
creation?

More than this, George, you cut programs that
could have fed, clothed, and healed the poor.
While you were President, there were 40 million
Americans who could not afford health care;
worldwide, billions more. In your own country, 1
of every 8 of my children lived in poverty;
worldwide, three billion more of my children lived
in poverty. While forty thousand of my children
died of starvation every day, fifteen million of
them every year, you gave tax breaks to the rich.
Millions died of diseases that could have
been easily treated, yet you refused to give them
the medicine they needed. My children were naked,
hungry, thirsty, and sick, yet you did not clothe
them, you did not feed them nor give them water to
drink; you did not comfort or heal them. George,
truly I tell you, in that you did not do it for
one of the least important of these, you did not
do it for me. (Matthew 25:45) Get away from me,
you who are accursed, into the eternal fire that
has been prepared for the devil and his angels!
(Matthew 25:41)

Big Trees and Sagebrush

Although the following was written specifically for those in the Wenatchee, WA area, it's a safe bet that the area where you live has seen much the same sort of changes. Do a little observation, ask a few questions: you may be surprised.

A few weeks ago, I was in a group of people and the conversation briefly touched on a large tree stump that had been in the Cashmere area. One of the participants in the conversation commented that he was surprised that there were any trees that big around here, and that he thought the area had always been filled with sagebrush. I have long been interested in what effect we Euro-Americans might have had on the local area, and have done a bit of research and study on this, but before I had a chance to get my two cents worth in on the subject, the conversation moved along to another topic. Today I wrote down my two cents worth, maybe a quarter's worth, and emailed it to my friend who thought that there were no trees and that the area was always filled with sagebrush. It occurs to me that some of you might also be interested in this, so here it is:

***********************************


First of all, there wasn't much sagebrush in the area. In Washington state, sagebrush grows primarily where the ground has been disturbed. The disturbance of the ground can be from several different causes; among the most common are logging, grazing, agriculture and the plowing associated with it, and mining. Nearly everything in Washington that can be logged, grazed or plowed has been logged, grazed or plowed. As you drive around North Central Washington, look along the sides of the road, and on the hillsides. You'll often see areas that have no sagebrush next to areas that are covered in sagebrush. And you'll often see that the boundaries of the sagebrush covered areas have straight sides and 90 degree corners. (Next time you're in South or East Wenatchee, have a look up at Burch Mountain to the North.) If you get your map and/or your GPS device out, you'll find many of these divisions are on section lines - the imaginary lines we use to divide up the land into one square mile chunks. Only now the lines aren't imaginary, they're real - they're fence lines. These sagebrush covered areas are the areas that were fenced and overgrazed, or plowed, planted and abandoned, and the disturbed land has been taken over by sagebrush. The adjacent relatively sagebrush-free areas were either not grazed or farmed, or were not fenced in so that there were too many grazing animals in too small a space.

In the 1930's the Cashmere area had several flooding episodes - not from the Wenatchee River, but from out of the canyons surrounding Cashmere, Mission Creek and so on. Much soil and debris was washed into town by these floods. The cause of this flooding? The surrounding area had been overlogged and overgrazed, leaving little plant life in the soil to hold the water and check erosion. The flooding of Cashmere in the 1930's was largely caused by the activities of man.

The first white men to enter the Wenatchee area recorded that the valley floor was covered in prairie bunch grass, which grew waist high, even head high. Seen any prairie bunch grass lately? I do know where there are a few patches of it, but most people in the area have never seen it, or even heard of it. There are a few small patches in Number Two Canyon, alongside the road. This area was heavily grazed, but in the small corridors between the fenced grazing land and the road, you can still find small patches of it.

As the population grew in the Wenatchee valley, the prairie bunch grass was slowly replaced with wheat, then apples, pears and cherries, and finally, houses. You can still find wheat growing alongside the roads in many places, sometimes in patches only a few feet square. There are a lot of local areas where wheat hasn't been planted in over 100 years, but wheat is persistent, and it has come up again year after year. You can even find it in the alleys downtown. Next time you're in Wenatchee, go look behind Adam's swap shop; there's a small patch of it there. I don't know how long it's been since there's been any wheat planted there, but I do know that the Johansen's Machine Shop building has been there for more than 80 years. So the wheat growing there was probably last planted over eight decades ago.

As fruit trees began to replace wheat as the major crop in the area, boxes had to be made to pack the fruit in. The fruit boxes were made from pine trees cut from the local hillsides. I read an article from the early 1900's that said that it was not unusual for a pine tree to be cut in the morning, and by evening to be a box packed with apples, in a railroad car headed east. The same article said that if they kept cutting trees at the same rate, there soon would be no trees left in the Wenatchee area.

I have seen a picture of Twin Peaks above Wenatchee taken in the late 1800's or early 1900's. There appear to be no trees on it. Either the trees on Twin Peaks now are the first trees to ever grow there, or they are what has grown back since the area was logged. You will find many places in the area where all the trees appear to be about the same age. You'd think there would be trees of all ages there, wouldn't you? Fifty year old trees, hundred year old trees, two hundred year old trees? But the trees you see there now are all about the same age - they are what has grown back since the area was logged years ago.

The hillsides in the Chelan area have also been heavily logged. The first "Lady of the Lake" boat, built around 1900, burned 10 or 12 cords of wood per trip. Regular boat traffic on Lake Chelan started about 1880, and that boat was also wood powered. Being smaller than the Lady, it probably burned somewhat less wood, but I haven't been able to find figures on its wood consumption. They were cutting trees in the Chelan area a long time ago.

In some areas you will find straight lines between the wooded and non-wooded areas, or between areas containing nothing but young trees and areas containing trees of all ages. Again, these are old property lines, and often on section lines.

I've been told that much of the lower portion of Number Two Canyon, which is now mostly treeless, was logged years ago. I have been looking for cut stumps, and have found a few. I have noticed that the trees growing in the Canyon now are mostly the same age, and there are no really old trees. I do know of a Ponderosa Pine within the city limits of Wenatchee which I would estimate to be over 200 years old, so apparently they missed a few.

Have you been to the Columbia Basin? These days, you'll see lots of agriculture in the area, enabled by the building of Grand Coulee Dam, and the pumps and canals that bring Columbia River water to the Basin. Much of this used to be sagebrush, too, and it was covered with sagebrush for the same reason that much of the greater Wenatchee area is covered with sagebrush - overgrazing. Ranchers started grazing cattle in the Basin in the mid 1850's, and the sheepherders soon followed. By the 1870's, the cattle ranchers and sheepherders were warring with each other, each claiming that the other had made "their" land unsuitable for further grazing. As more and more of the land was grazed bare, ranching started to die out in the Basin in the 1880's.

I know a man who spent his entire career in the Forest Service. (He is now retired.) We often talked about the effect Euro-Americans have had on the area. He told me that the closest place to Wenatchee that he could think of that hadn't been logged, grazed or plowed was the top of Steamboat Rock on Banks Lake. You can't get a tractor or a cow up there, so it was left alone. Unfortunately, you still can't call this "pristine", since seeds have blown in from the adjacent overgrazed and over-farmed lands, and Steamboat Rock is now covered with sagebrush and other formerly unknown or uncommon plants.

You probably now know more about what we've done to the local area than just about anybody you know.

Defending Against What?

 The budget recently proposed by George W.
Bush has clear winners and losers. The big
winner is defense, while the losers are
education, the environment, and social programs.
Mr. Bush will claim that increases in defense
spending are necessary to protect the American
people. But how does our defense budget compare
with other countries? How much do other countries
spend on their militaries? How much do we need to
defend against those who would be hostile to the
United States?

I will compare the US military budget with those
of other nations, so we can see where we stand
in our ability to defend against attack. All
figures given here are from the US CIA, and are
the latest figures available on their website.
Figures for the US are from March, 2003, others
are generally from 2003 or 2002, a few are from
2001, and a few are estimated. For whatever
reason, the military budget figures for Russia
are not available on the CIA's website;
estimates from other sources are approximately
12.3 billion dollars in 2003.

According to CIA figures, US military
expenditures for 2003 totaled 370.7 billion
dollars. So how does the 370.7 billion dollars
the US spent on its military compare with the
military budgets of other nations?

Using the latest figures available from the
CIA, the country with the next highest
military expenditures, after the US, is China
at 60 billion dollars. The US military budget
is more than 6 times that of our nearest competitor.

    After the US, the next 15 countries on the list are:


1.    China                  60 billion dollars
2.    France                 45.2 billion dollars
3.    United Kingdom         42.8 billion dollars
4.    Japan                  42.5 billion dollars
5.    Germany                35 billion dollars
6.    Italy                  28.2 billion dollars
7.    Saudi Arabia           18 billion dollars
8.    South Korea            14.5 billion dollars
9.    Australia              14.1 billion dollars
10.   India                  14 billion dollars
11.   Russia                 12.3 billion dollars
12.   Turkey                 12.2 billion dollars
13.   Brazil                 10.4 billion dollars
14.   Spain                   9.9 billion dollars
15.   Canada                  9.8 billion dollars

    Total                   368.9 billion dollars


The military budgets of these 15 countries total
368.9 billion dollars, just under the 370.7
billion dollars the US spent on its military.
The US spends more on "defense" than the next
15 nations combined! Most of these countries
are generally considered to be "friends" or
"allies" of the US, and certainly not someone
who we need to defend ourselves against.
Looking at it another way, military expenditures
for the entire world total 883.2 billion dollars.
The US military budget, at 370.7 billion dollars,
is 42% of the entire world's military budget.
One has to wonder, just what exactly is it we
are "defending" against?

    The nations Bush declared to be the "Axis
of Evil", Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, have
military budgets of:

  Iraq                   1.3 billion dollars  (2000)
  Iran                   4.3 billion dollars
  North Korea            5.2 billion dollars

  Total                  10.8 billion dollars

    The US military budget exceeds the total
military expenditures of the "Axis of Evil"
nations by a factor of 34.

The US military budget for 2005 is approximately
400 billion dollars, plus an additional
"supplementary appropriation" of an estimated
80 to 100 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and an additional 30.5
billion dollars for "domestic security",
totaling over 500 billion dollars.

Since we clearly spend more than enough on our
military to defend against attack from other
nations (although perhaps not enough for
military adventures into countries who have
neither the intention nor the ability to
attack us, but do have large quantities of
oil), it seems to me that we could spend a
much smaller portion of our tax dollars on
the military, leaving more money for education,
environmental protections, health care,
development of alternative energy sources,
and so on. We might even consider spending a
little on our neighbors in the world who are
less fortunate than ourselves. And wouldn't
a safe, healthy and well educated population,
and a world no longer filled with starving
people be the best defense of all?

More "Defense of Marriage" Hypocrisy

I was wandering around the website of the Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government (www.werg.org), and came across their position paper on the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA). (You can find it at: http://www.werg.org/papers/DOMA.htm). I have often wondered why those “defending marriage” concentrate on homosexual marriage instead of their own divorces, which to me seems to be the highest hypocrisy. What are the thought processes behind believing that homosexual marriage – people getting married - is more of a threat to marriage than getting divorced – ending a marriage? I won't go into detail on the hypocrisy of this so-called “Defense of Marriage” as I have done that elsewhere. What I found particularly interesting about this paper was that they specifically mention that marriage is forever. Quoting from their position paper:

“Marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman and was created by God to be a life-long, sexually exclusive relationship”

“More than a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the 'union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.'"

Since they make it a point to mention – twice – that marriage is for life, you'd think that they would be especially concerned about divorce, wouldn't you? Yet there is no mention of divorce whatsoever. If they truly believe that marriage should be forever, why isn't the “Defense of Marriage Act” about divorce? Why doesn't WERG's position paper on the “Defense of Marriage Act” speak about divorce? Why aren't they pushing for a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce?

As it turns out, there hasn't always been such a need to “defend marriage”. It used to be much harder to get a divorce in the U.S. than it is now. Although Oklahoma has had a “no fault” divorce law since 1953, the rest of the nation didn't pass no fault divorce laws until the example was set by the State of California. They say “as California goes, so goes the nation”, and that turns out to be the case here. In 1969, the Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, signed into law the “Family Law Act”, which eliminated the need to show evidence of wrongdoing to obtain a divorce. Most other states quickly followed suit.

It is interesting to note that, twenty years before signing no fault divorce into law, Ronald Reagan had himself been divorced, and is the only divorced person ever to become President the United States. (His first wife, Jane Wyman, had sued for divorce on the grounds of “mental cruelty”, although there is also speculation that Jane had been involved in an affair that contributed to the divorce.) What irony that a man greatly admired by the “Defense of Marriage” crowd is in many ways responsible for the real threat to marriage – divorce.

I hate to keep harping on the hypocrisy of the “Defense of Marriage” supporters, but the logic of their position escapes me. I challenge those who are genuinely concerned about marriage to work to reduce or eliminate divorce in America before worrying about who else may or may not get married.

"Defense of Marriage"

     Much  has been said by the "Religious Right"
about the "Defense of Marriage".  When they speak
of the "Defense of Marriage", what they are
really talking about is forbidding homosexuals to
marry.  Indeed, they have proposed the following
amendment to the Constitution:

     "Marriage in the United States shall consist
only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither
this Constitution, nor the constitution of any
State, shall be construed to require that
marriage or the legal incidents thereof be
conferred upon any union other than the union of
a man and a woman."

     George W. Bush said, in a statement made on
February 24, 2004, "the Defense of Marriage
requires a constitutional amendment....  Today I
call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to
send to the states for ratification, an amendment
to our Constitution defining and protecting
marriage as a union of man and woman as husband
and wife."

     Right-wing religious leader Jerry Falwell
stated, "I agree that the only way to put
marriage out of reach of fanatical judges and
militant lawmakers is to pass the Federal
Marriage Amendment that defines marriage as a
union between one man and one woman, period."

     Richard Land, president of the Southern
Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty
Commission, says, "The best legal minds in the
country have come to the conclusion that the only
way we can protect ourselves from having the
judiciary force same-sex 'marriage' upon an
unwilling nation is to have a constitutional
amendment that says specifically that nothing in
the U.S. Constitution or any of the state
constitutions shall be construed as requiring
that marriage be anything other than the union of
a man and a woman."

     Clearly, these people are serious about the
"Defense of Marriage."  In order to defend
marriage, they are prepared to amend the
Constitution, which is a most serious matter, not
to be taken lightly.  But what does "Defense of
Marriage" consist of?  Is it only about
homosexuals getting married, or would it include
divorce?  Surely the best way to defend marriage
is to end divorce.  And so, one would expect to
find that the Religious Right has a very low
incidence of divorce, right?  After all, the
Bible is quite clear on these matters:

     In Matthew 5:32, Jesus says, "but I say unto
you, that every one that putteth away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her
an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when
she is put away committeth adultery."

     In Exodus 20:14, we find, "Thou shalt not
commit adultery."

     In Leviticus 20:10, we find, "And the man
that committeth adultery with another man’s wife,
even he that committeth adultery with his
neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress
shall surely be put to death."

     And in Malachi 2:16 we find this statement,
"For I hate putting away, saith Jehovah, the God
of Israel."

     In the Bible we see that the only allowable
reason for divorce - "putteth away his wife" – is
fornication, which the Merriam-Webster dictionary
defines as, "consensual sexual intercourse
between two persons not married to each other."
We also see that God does not like divorce: "I
hate putting away", and that marrying a divorced
person constitutes adultery, for which "the
adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put
to death."

     So, if we find that Christians do get
divorced, it must mean one of two things:  that
one partner or the other has been having sex
outside the marriage (fornication), or that there
has been no sex outside the marriage, and that
Christians have been getting divorced without
justifiable cause.  Do Christians get divorced?

     The Barna Research Group has done studies of
this.  The Barna Group was founded by George
Barna, who describes himself as an evangelical
Christian.  The stated mission of the Barna Group
is "to partner with Christian ministries and
individuals to be a catalyst in moral and
spiritual transformation in the United States."
They conduct research and polls on topics of
interest to Christians.

     Barna Group research in 2004 found that,
"Among married born again Christians, 35% have
experienced a divorce. That figure is identical
to the outcome among married adults who are not
born again: 35%."  And those divorces generally
did not occur before they became born-again
Christians, but after:  “If we eliminate those
who became Christians after their divorce, the
divorce figure among born again adults drops to
34% - statistically identical to the figure among
non-Christians.”

     Of course, the divorce rate among Christians
(and non-Christians) varies by denomination.
Barna research carried out in 1999, 2001, and
2004 found the following divorce rates:


Pentecostals:         44%
Protestants:          39%
Jews:                 30%
Baptists:             29%
Presbyterians:        28%
Episcopalians:        28%
Methodists:           26%
Catholics:            25%
Mormons:              24%
Lutherans:            21%
Atheists, Agnostics   21%


     It's interesting to note that among the
groups with the lowest divorce rates are atheists
and agnostics.

     If we assume that all of these divorces are
justified, that is, due to fornication, then
there must be a lot of fornication going on
amongst religious people.  The Barna Group also
finds that "nearly one-quarter of the married
born agains (23%) get divorced two or more
times."  If the divorces were not due to
fornication, then remarrying constitutes
adultery, for which they "shall surely be put to
death."

     Clearly, those in favor of "protecting
marriage" can best do so by changing their own
behavior: stop getting divorced.

     Perhaps the most appropriate statement on
this subject comes from Jesus, in the Gospel of
Matthew, Chapter 7:

     3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in
thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam
that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say
to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of
thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of
thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to
cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

     In other words, clean up your own house
before you start worrying about homosexuals
getting married.

Values Voters - Child Executions

 On March 1, 2005, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that children under age
18 who commit serious crimes such as
murder, may not be executed, and
stated that execution of children
constitutes a violation of the Eighth
Amendment ban on cruel and unusual
punishment.  It should be noted that
more than half of the countries in
the world have entirely eliminated
the death penalty, and that there are
four international human rights
treaties that exclude child offenders
from the death penalty.  In a worldwide
study of the execution of children
between 1994 and 2002, two-thirds of
the executions of children occurred
in the United States.

While it has been said that Bush was
elected by the "values voters", I have
previously found that the states that
voted for Bush in the November, 2004
election had higher divorce rates,
higher murder rates, and higher teen
pregnancy rates.  So, when I heard that
there were 19 states that had allowed
execution of children, I wondered if
the "values voters" states - those who
voted for Bush - were more or less
likely to allow the execution of
children.  Following is the list of
states that allowed execution of
children prior to the Supreme Court
ruling, and how they voted in the
recent presidential election:


Alabama              Bush
Arizona              Bush
Arkansas             Bush
Delaware             Kerry
Florida              Bush
Georgia              Bush
Idaho                Bush
Kentucky             Bush
Louisiana            Bush
Mississippi          Bush
Nevada               Bush
New Hampshire        Kerry
North Carolina       Bush
Oklahoma             Bush
Pennsylvania         Kerry
South Carolina       Bush
Texas                Bush
Utah                 Bush
Virginia             Bush


Of the 19 states that did allow
execution of children, sixteen
voted for Bush.  So, not only do
Bush's "values voters" have
higher rates of divorce, murder,
and teen pregnancy, they are also
more likely to execute children.
The notion that Bush voters have
higher moral standards is a myth,
and is not supported by the facts.

If you find this information useful,
feel free to pass it on to your friends.

Values Voters - Teen Pregnancy

 We've heard how the "Values Voters" put Bush back
 in the White House.  But what kind of values do they
 really have?  Previously, we've seen that "Red"
 states - those that voted for Bush - have higher
 divorce rates, and higher murder rates than
 "Blue" states - those that voted for Kerry.  Well,
 OK, maybe they divorce and murder more, but
 surely those "Values Voters" wouldn't be running
 around knocking up teenage girls, would they?
 Teenage girls in "Values Voters" states surely 
 wouldn't be having pre-marital sex, would they?
 You'd think that, being raised by those oh-so-moral
 "Values Voters" parents, they'd have hardly any
 teen pregnancy at all.  Although the teen
 pregnancy rates are not as lopsided as the
 divorce rates, they are still interesting:


 Teen Pregnancy Rates by State,
 and how they voted for President

District of Columbia   128       Kerry
Nevada                 113       Bush
Arizona                104       Bush
New Mexico             103       Bush
Mississippi            103       Bush
Texas                  101       Bush
Florida                 97       Bush
California              96       Kerry
Georgia                 95       Bush
North Carolina          95       Bush
Arkansas                93       Bush
Hawaii                  93       Kerry
Delaware                93       Kerry
New York                91       Kerry
Maryland                91       Kerry
Alabama                 90       Bush
New Jersey              90       Kerry
Tennessee               89       Bush
South Carolina          89       Bush
Illinois                87       Kerry
Louisiana               87       Bush
Oklahoma                86       Bush
Colorado                82       Bush
Oregon                  79       Kerry
Wyoming                 77       Bush
Kentucky                76       Bush
Michigan                75       Kerry
Washington              75       Kerry
Missouri                74       Bush
Ohio                    74       Bush
Alaska                  73       Bush
Indiana                 73       Bush
Virginia                72       Bush
Connecticut             70       Kerry
Kansas                  69       Bush
West Virginia           67       Bush
Rhode Island            67       Kerry
Idaho                   62       Bush
Montana                 60       Bush
Massachusetts           60       Kerry
Pennsylvania            60       Kerry
Nebraska                59       Bush
Wisconsin               55       Kerry
Iowa                    55       Bush
South Dakota            54       Bush
Utah                    53       Bush
Maine                   52       Kerry
Minnesota               50       Kerry
New Hampshire           47       Kerry
Vermont                 44       Kerry
North Dakota            42       Bush


 Eight of the 10 states with the
 highest teen pregnancy rates
 voted for Bush.

 Twelve of the 20 states with the
 highest teen pregnancy
 rates voted for Bush.

 The 10 states with the lowest teen
 pregnancy rates split evenly
 between Bush and Kerry.

 Where's the value in that?

 Teen pregnancy rates, ages 15-19,
 Source: The Alan Guttmacher Institute.
 Election Results from CNN.

Values Voters - Divorce and Murder

 Much has been said about the role of “Values
 Voters” in electing Bush.  This implies that
 Bush voters have higher moral values than
 non-Bush voters, does it not?  And during the
 campaign, we often heard about those
 “Massachusetts Liberals”, and their lack of
 values.  So let's consider a couple of things
 that I would consider to be related to moral
 values, and see how they correlate with election
 results.

 Let's see, divorce is a Moral Value, isn't it?


 Divorce Rates, by State, and how they voted
 in the 2004 Presidential Election.  
Arranged Lowest Divorce Rate to Highest.

1 Massachusetts          2.4       Kerry
2 Connecticut            2.8       Kerry
3 New Jersey             3.0       Kerry
4 Rhode Island           3.2       Kerry
5 New York               3.3       Kerry
6 Pennsylvania           3.3       Kerry
7 Wisconsin              3.4       Kerry
8 North Dakota           3.4       Bush
9 Maryland               3.5       Kerry
10 Minnesota             3.6       Kerry
11 Louisiana             3.6       Bush
12 Illinois              3.7       Kerry
13 District of Columbia  3.9       Kerry 
14 Iowa                  3.9       Bush
15 Nebraska              4.0       Bush
16 Vermont               4.0       Kerry
17 Michigan              4.1       Kerry
18 South Dakota          4.2       Bush
19 South Carolina        4.2       Bush
20 Hawaii                4.2       Kerry
21 California            4.3       Kerry
22 Maine                 4.4       Kerry
23 New Hampshire         4.4       Kerry 
24 Ohio                  4.5       Bush
25 Virginia              4.6       Bush
26 Kansas                4.7       Bush
27 Utah                  4.7       Bush
28 Delaware              4.8       Kerry
29 Montana               4.9       Bush
30 Missouri              5.0       Bush
31 West Virginia         5.0       Bush
32 North Carolina        5.1       Bush
33 Colorado              5.1       Bush
34 Georgia               5.2       Bush
35 Oregon                5.3       Kerry
36 Texas                 5.4       Bush
37 Alaska                5.5       Bush
38 Washington            5.6       Kerry
39 Mississippi           5.7       Bush
40 Kentucky              5.8       Bush
41 Arizona               5.8       Bush
42 Florida               5.9       Bush
43 New Mexico            6.0       Bush
44 Idaho                 6.2       Bush
45 Alabama               6.2       Bush
46 Indiana               6.6       Bush
47 Wyoming               6.5       Bush
48 Tennessee             6.6       Bush
49 Oklahoma              6.7       Bush
50 Arkansas              7.1       Bush
51 Nevada                9.0       Bush

 Divorce statistics from Divorce Magazine,
 compiled from Center for Disease Control,
 National Center for Health Statistics.

 Election Results from CNN.

 Fourteen of the 20 states with the lowest
 divorce rates voted for Kerry.

 Nineteen of the 20 states with the highest
 divorce rates voted for Bush.


 OK, so “Values Voters” have higher divorce rates.
 What else is there?  Well, how about murder,
 that's a Moral Value, too, isn't it?


 Murder Rate, by State, and how they voted in
 the 2004 Presidential Election.  
 Arranged from highest murder rate to lowest.

1 Louisiana             13.0       Bush
2 Maryland              9.5        Kerry
3 Mississippi           9.3        Bush
4 Nevada                8.8        Bush
5 Arizona               7.9        Bush
6 Georgia               7.6        Bush
7 South Carolina        7.2        Bush
8 Illinois              7.1        Kerry
9 California            6.8        Kerry
10 Tennessee            6.8        Bush
11 Alabama              6.6        Bush
12 Arkansas             6.4        Bush
13 Texas                6.4        Bush
14 Michigan             6.1        Kerry
15 North Carolina       6.1        Bush
16 Alaska               6.0        Bush
17 New Mexico           6.0        Bush
18 Oklahoma             5.9        Bush
19 Virginia             5.6        Bush
20 Indiana              5.5        Bush
21 Florida              5.4        Bush
22 Pennsylvania         5.3        Kerry
23 Missouri             5.0        Bush
24 New York             4.9        Kerry
25 New Jersey           4.7        Kerry
26 Kentucky             4.6        Bush
27 Ohio                 4.6        Bush
28 Kansas               4.5        Bush
29 Colorado             3.9        Bush
30 West Virginia        3.5        Bush
31 Montana              3.3        Bush
32 Wisconsin            3.3        Kerry
33 Nebraska             3.2        Bush
34 Connecticut          3.0        Kerry
35 Washington           3.0        Kerry
36 Delaware             2.9        Kerry
37 Wyoming              2.8        Bush
38 Minnesota            2.5        Kerry
39 Utah                 2.5        Bush
40 Rhode Island         2.3        Kerry
41 Vermont              2.3        Kerry
42 Massachusetts        2.2        Kerry
43 North Dakota         1.9        Bush
44 Oregon               1.9        Kerry
45 Idaho                1.8        Bush
46 Hawaii               1.7        Kerry
47 Iowa                 1.6        Bush
48 New Hampshire        1.4        Kerry
49 South Dakota         1.3        Bush
50 Maine                1.2        Kerry


 Murder Rate Source: FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for 2003.

 Election Results from CNN.


 Seven of the 10 states with the highest murder
 rate voted for Bush.

 Sixteen of the 20 states with the highest murder
 rate voted for Bush.

 Six of the 10 states with the lowest murder rate
 voted for Kerry.

 Twelve of the 20 states with the lowest murder
 rate voted for Kerry.