Sociologist Christian Smith began his ambitious, multivolume effort to plumb the religious lives of Americans across the life course in his 2005 with Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. In that book—aimed at an audience that the author hoped would include general readers as well as clergy and scholars—Smith painted an incisive portrait of religion among America’s adolescents. Especially insightful was the way Smith explained why the more sectarian religious traditions in the United States, such as evangelical Protestantism and Mormonism, were achieving greater success than more churchly traditions such as mainline Protestantism and Roman Catholicism in transmitting their faiths to the next generation. Also notable was the way Smith explained how the guiding religious ethos of American teenagers—what he aptly termed “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism”—seemed so suited for our culture.

Smith contended, in his 2005 book, that most religious teens in the U.S. had very little appreciation or regard for the theological and doctrinal particulars of their own religious traditions but did believe that God exists, loves them, wants them to follow the Golden Rule, and comforts them in the midst of the emotional ups and downs of adolescence. Moreover, Smith argued, most teens, including teens who were regular churchgoers, believed that all religious traditions are functionally equivalent, and that they provide spiritual succor, moral guidance, and emotional support in about equal measures. This, then, is Moralistic Therapeutic Deism; and, as Smith pointed out, it has proved enormously useful to American adolescents because it allows them to navigate the increasingly pluralistic milieu of the United States without stepping on the religious sensitivities of their peers or violating the tolerant conventions of the larger society.

In his latest book, Souls in Transition: The Religious & Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults, Smith revisits the spiritual state of his respondents as young adults aged 18 to 23, at a life stage that is now called “emerging adulthood” in the social sciences. In a sense, not much has changed among the emerging adults Smith discusses in this new book. Young adults from more sectarian religious communities still do comparatively better when it comes to outcomes such as church attendance and orthodox religious belief, and most emerging adults still seem to subscribe to a form of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

Smith notes, however, that emerging adults are less religious than they were as adolescents. Only 15 percent attend church on a weekly basis, and 26 percent indicate they have no religion. Part of the story here is that young adults often drift away from formal religious practice after they move out of their family homes and return to regular churchgoing only when they marry and have children. For much of recent American history, young adulthood has been the religious nadir of the life course for most Americans.

But the religious disconnect—institutional, moral, and theological— among contemporary emerging adults that Smith describes in Souls in Transition seems more profound than the typical pattern of temporary religious disengagement that has marked the lives of young adults over the last century or so. A majority of today’s emerging adults do not regularly darken the door of a church; are largely indifferent or, in some cases, hostile to religion; and are similarly indifferent or hostile to religious teachings about the good life—especially as they relate to sex, drinking, and drugs. Furthermore, a majority of the 30 percent of this cohort of emerging adults who are regular churchgoers are “selective adherents” who “believe and perform certain aspects of their religious traditions but neglect and ignore others.” By Smith’s reckoning, only 15 percent of emerging adults count as “committed traditionalists” who are committed and consistent believers. When it comes to religion, this seems to be a generation of lukewarm believers.

This should come as little surprise, however, when we step back from the religious lives of today’s emerging adults and look at the larger social milieu in which they find themselves. Their connections to education and work tend to be fragile and unstable. They live much of their lives in an isolated, electronically mediated world in which iPods, personal computers, and cell phones link them to their preferred music, movies, and friends and not much else. They are largely indifferent to the great causes of the right and the left. And, most importantly, for most of these emerging adults, marriage is not on the horizon. It is little wonder, therefore, that the members of this lukewarm generation are largely disconnected from American religion, given that they are also disconnected from stable long-term employment, civil society, and family life.

What is to be done? Smith does not provide any easy answers to this question in Souls in Transition. He does, however, offer some excellent advice to parents and religious leaders about how they can steer today’s children away from the lukewarm lives being lived by contemporary emerging adults. According to Smith’s analyses, children are more likely to end up as committed and consistent young-adult believers if their parents integrate religious faith into daily family life; if children are exposed to engaging adult believers in their churches; if they have good religious friends; if they live chaste lives; and, interestingly, if they have to suffer for their faith. Smith notes that adolescents who were “made fun of by peers for [their] religious faith” were more likely to end up as serious believers as young adults. In other words, family, friends, sex, and suffering will have a lot to do with how successful the next generation of young people will be in avoiding the lukewarm path being trod by many of today’s emerging adults.

HT: FirstThings

Catholic Online | by Jennifer Hartline | 2/11/2010

In continuing the discussion about a sexual counter-revolution and defeating the culture of death, let’s also confront the need for a fashion revolution.

Every time I walk through the mall I feel this stab of pain in my gut. It also happens in Target, Wal-Mart, the doctor’s office, the grocery store; it even happens in church. I don’t need medication for this pain. It’s not a disease – it’s grief. I’m mourning the death of modesty.

Last week I read the most perfect definition of modesty on the website for the Archdiocese of Washington. Msgr. Charles Pope wrote that “modesty is reverence for mystery.” I can’t imagine a better way to define it. And sadly, in our culture, the mystery is GONE. And with it has gone all reverence, dignity, and respect.

I’m just so sick of seeing women “on display” everywhere I go. It’s inescapable and it’s gotten trashy. I feel sorry for men today – at least the men who are attempting to be gentlemen. Men are visual creatures by design, and now the poor guys can hardly raise their eyes off their shoes without being confronted by half-naked women they’re then not supposed to look at. It’s more than inconsiderate; it’s irresponsible and disrespectful.

Women “advertise” their physical assets in skin-tight, low-cut clothing that reveals more than it covers and then are offended when they aren’t given respect for their skill and intelligence. They market themselves to the world as a sex object and are shocked when they are treated as such.

And make no mistake, ladies, when you walk around with some of the clothing styles too often displayed in public, you are marketing yourself as a sex object whether you think so or not. There’s a neon sign over your head saying “Look at my body! Don’t you think I’m hot?”

There was a time when a woman’s appeal was multi-faceted; her poise, her intelligence, her manners, her wit and savvy, her skills, and yes, her feminine style. Today it seems the only criteria to be met is being sufficiently “hot.”

It’s bad enough that adult women’s fashion has become entirely about sex, but the real grief is that sex-centered clothing is now commonplace for young girls. It is appalling to see what has become acceptable in girls’ fashion. Not a day goes by that I don’t see little girls dressed in spaghetti straps and bare midriff tops and I think back to my girlhood and know that I never would have been allowed to leave the bathroom like that.

If by some fluke I’d managed to avoid being seen by my mother, I never would have made it past my father. Thank God. Of course, the point is that my parents taught me to be a modest young lady and thus I never had any desire to wear sexualized clothing. I would’ve been mortified.

I ache with sadness to realize that mothers and fathers today do not protect their daughters’ innocence and purity by dressing them modestly. Little girls are learning at a very young age that it’s okay for their bodies to be publicly “consumed” and their self-esteem and self-image is cemented to their sexual appeal.

From a tender age, the seeds of promiscuity are planted. From that seed can grow unmarried sex, STD’s, warped ideas about sex, unintended pregnancies, unhealthy body images, destructive relationships, broken hearts, and worst of all, babies killed by abortion. Go back step by step by step, and it begins with the absence of modesty…. no reverence for mystery.

I recently went a few e-mail rounds with the president of a children’s clothing company after I got their catalog in the mail and was shocked by what I saw. The catalog featured a swimsuit for little girls (I mean toddlers, here) that was simply two small fabric patches shaped like ladybugs held up by strings over the shoulders and back.

This was supposed to be “cute” on a little girl. Just enough fabric to cover her. When I wrote to express my outrage, I was told in reply that the staff – made up mostly of moms and grandmothers – was upset that I would impugn their choice of swimwear for little girls. They would never sell anything that was inappropriate or indecent, I was told. But they thanked me for my concern and assured me that they’d take it into consideration for next year’s line.

Please. We’re living in a culture that is saturated with sex and every possible perversion of sex. Is it really beyond the realm of common sense to realize that our daughters should not be half-naked in public, even if they’re only two years old? That swimsuit was a pedophile’s dream.

Is that really so hard to understand? As far as I’m concerned, to expose a little girl’s body in public in such a manner is neglectful and dangerous. It isn’t adorable, it’s stupid and reckless. It’s inviting trouble in so many ways.

Part of successful abstinence education among our kids is going to be a successful revival of modesty in dress for young ladies. Teach a young girl that her body is sacred and should be cherished and treated with care, show her how to present herself accordingly by the way she dresses, and that girl will be much less likely to throw away her purity.

Teach girls that it is their responsibility to themselves – and to young men they meet – to set the tone for how she expects a man to treat her. Clothe yourself with dignity, girls, and show yourself the respect you deserve. A gentleman will follow your lead. A guy who won’t should be shown the door.

Toward this end, I was absolutely delighted to learn from a Catholic Online colleague about Pure Fashion, a faith-based program designed to teach young girls to live the virtues of modesty and purity. Please read on with me in part two of this article and learn more about this very exciting program that is an answer to this mom’s prayers.

———-

Jennifer Hartline is a Catholic Army wife and stay-at-home mother of three precious kids who writes frequently on topics of Catholic faith and daily living. She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online.

HT: CatholicOnline

Amazon.com | by Nicole Gelinas | 2009

Robust financial markets support capitalism, they don’t imperil it. But in 2008, Washington policymakers were compelled to replace private risk-takers in the financial system with government capital so that money and credit flows wouldn’t stop, precipitating a depression.

Washington’s actions weren’t the start of government distortions in the financial industry, Nicole Gelinas writes, but the natural result of 25 years’ worth of such distortions.

In the early eighties, modern finance began to escape reasonable regulations, including the most important regulation of all, that of the marketplace. The government gradually adopted a “too big to fail” policy for the largest or most complex financial companies, saving lenders to failing firms from losses. As a result, these companies became impervious to the vital market discipline that the threat of loss provides.

Adding to the problem, Wall Street created financial instruments that escaped other reasonable limits, including gentle constraints on speculative borrowing and requirements for the disclosure of important facts.

The financial industry eventually posed an untenable risk to the economy—a risk that culminated in the trillions of dollars’ worth of government bailouts and guarantees that Washington scrambled starting in late 2008.

Even as banks and markets seem to heal, lenders to financial companies continue to understand that the government would protect them in the future if necessary. This implicit guarantee harms economic growth, because it forces good companies to compete against bad.

History and recent events make clear what Washington must do.

First, policymakers must reintroduce market discipline to the financial world. They can do so by re-creating a credible, consistent way in which big financial companies can fail, with lenders taking their warranted losses. Second, policymakers can reapply prudent financial regulations so that markets, and the economy, can better withstand inevitable excesses of optimism and pessimism. Sensible regulations have worked well in the past and can work well again.

As Gelinas explains in this richly detailed book, adequate regulation of financial firms and markets is a prerequisite for free-market capitalism—not a barrier to it.

About the Author
Nicole Gelinas, a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) charterholder, is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and contributing editor to City Journal. She lives in New York City.