Only in America: God Gets a 33% Approval Rating

I found this Yahoo! News article discussing a recent Newsweek survey rather amusing. So much so that I had to check the calendar to be sure that it wasn't April Fool's Day. While I may have some qualms over the small sample size (n=600) and probably some other technical details if they were disclosed, the overall finding that Americans are angry at anything and everything was illuminating. Having encountered some ornery gringos in the past few days, it all makes perfect sense expressed in dollars and cents, pound, shilling and pence. For such materialistic people, Americans' mood swings are highly conditioned on their economic situation. With no real rays of hope in sight, their lot has become very hot under the collar. (That's if they haven't lost their shirts yet.)

In a grimly hilarious fashion, the American public has given God a negative job approval rating of 33% [?!] I'm not quite sure how His management chops are implicated here--maybe "In God We Trust" on dollar bills has gotten them all whiny--but one thing's for certain: those Yankees are acting out Michael Fay style:

A new Newsweek poll finds that Americans are angry about…pretty much everything. From President Obama to congressional Republicans to even God (who has a 33 percent approval rating), everyone needs to watch out for an angry mob coming their way.

Unemployment is at 9.1 percent, gas and grocery prices are skyrocketing, the housing market is in the dumps, and people aren’t happy. Three quarters of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and 81 percent say the job market is not where it needs to be. Half of respondents don’t think Obama has a plan to balance the budget, and 58 percent think Republicans aren’t doing their part to balance the budget either.

The poll finds that Americans are being affected by their anger in other parts of life as well. Fifty-six percent are so angry that they can’t even sleep and 13 percent say the anxiety has affected their sex life. Twenty-six percent of married respondents claim the country’s economic problems have affected their marriage, with more than half of those people saying it has made their marriage worse.

Perhaps it's time for the subprime solution, but I digress. In the end, we must live with the choices we make, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

Divine Intervention? Pope Keen on Croatia in EU

Here's some interesting "RPE" for you--religious political economy. Or mayhaps some international papal economy. While regional integration is usually concerned with mammon (money) instead of more sacred matters, here we have an interesting meeting of culture, religion, and integration. Looking back now, something George W. Bush and I actually agreed on is that Turkey should be an EU member. Not that Dubya's statements were particularly well-received in 2004 when Jacques Chirac told Bush to mind his own business. With similar sorts of reactions emanating from the other EU powerhouse, Germany--one with a large presence of Turkish immigrants--someone's suggested everyone's a little bit racist.

Now we have a more authoritative voice calling for the EU membership--one that many would deem rather more authoritative. When it comes to foremost commentators on processes of EU integration, German Pope Benedict XVI may not come to mind. However, on his current trip to Croatia, he has added to the standard gospel of the sanctity of family, respect for life, and religious observance, er...EU accession. Although he doesn't go into the subtleties of replacing the Croatian kuna with the euro upon joining the EMU farther down the line, the Pope is still quite aware of the tactical aspects of integration. You see, Croatia is 90% Catholic--a God-fearing people alike the Polish unlike increasingly secular and bastardized Western Europe.

Notably, Benedict has voiced his controversial opinion that Turkey is not Christian, hence it has no place in Europe which he believes has such a heritage. (I obviously disagree--it's not a matter of which faith people believe in but how it is lived and observed.) So, what better way to continue ensured Roman Catholic voices in the EU to combat secular drift but to let Croatia in despite its relatively small population of 4.5 million? It's a call to the faithful, then: do not let your faith waver in the Man Above--or the EU on earth for that matter [!]. From Auntie:

Pope Benedict XVI has given his strong backing to Croatia's bid to join the EU, on his first visit to the nation. He said he understood fears of a loss of cultural identity from joining the bloc but said Europe needs to be reminded of its Christian roots...

Pope Benedict said it was "logical, just and necessary" that Croatia join the European Union, given its history. "From its earliest days, your nation has formed part of Europe, and has contributed in its unique way to the spiritual and moral values that for centuries have shaped the daily lives and the personal and national identity of Europe's sons and daughters," he said after arriving at Zagreb's airport.

Support for EU membership may have flagged among Croats somewhat recently, say analysts, amid anger at the conviction in April by The Hague war crimes tribunal of Gen Ante Gotovina. He commanded Croatian forces during the war for independence from Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.

The Pope acknowledged, in comments to reporters onboard his papal plane, that many in Croatia feared its national identity could be lost within such a large bloc. He said he understood "a fear of an overly strong centralised bureaucracy", but urged Croatians to make it their "mission" to fight against this.

BBC Balkans correspondent Mark Lowen suggests it's very much a you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours deal with a Croatian leadership seeking Benedict's help in pushing through with EU accession despite fears of being swamped by big, bad, Brussels:

This visit coincides with Croatia's national day of the family, but the broader timing is far more significant: Croatia will mark 20 years of independence this month and it now stands on the brink of European Union membership, hoping to join the bloc in 2013. The Vatican has long supported Croatia's EU entry; it's keen to welcome in another Catholic nation. Croatia's government, struggling with wavering support for the EU among its voters, will hope this visit persuades the doubters.

What can I say? Aside from being His emissary on earth, the Pope is also a head of state (the Vatican) who must do politicking if matters call for it. BTW, there is a quite informative Croatian government site on its process of EU accession that should key you in to the complexity and enormity of the process. Chapters upon chapters of the acquis communautaire, f'rinstance. Be that as it may, help from above could just be what it takes to get Croatia over the finish line in 2013.

QE2, Hand Westminister Abbey Back to Us Catholics

[NOTE: This is the first of two royal wedding overload "specials" from your cranky correspondent. Blogging is not usually an activity for the well-adjusted.] A few days ago, I eagerly watched the BBC documentary "Does Christianity Have a Future?" which focused on the fate of various Christian churches here in the UK. To be sure, the statistics look fairly alarming as weekly attendance for the two major denominations, Anglicanism and Catholicism, has fallen steadily.

There is an important caveat, however: the Roman Catholic church has actually become the dominant religion in this here land by virtue of losing followers at a somewhat slower rate. Being Catholic, I am not quite sure of whether to be proud or wary of this fact. Immigration helps: an influx of God-fearing people--the Polish--has improved matters. Moreover, the Anglican church is busy self-destructing from my point of view with its "anything goes" approach to religion. While it has had gay and women priests for quite some time, the Anglican church ordaining female bishops was one step too far for many. Famously, the presenter of the documentary, Ann Widdecombe, converted to Catholicism in its wake. The UK Catholic Church also made a huge event out of three Anglican bishops--their wives in tow--being ordained as Catholic priests. Or so I kept being reminded while attending Westminster Cathedral where they were ordained--the mother church of Catholicism in the UK.

This roundabout discussion bring me to nearby Westminster Abbey. In a few days' time, you will unavoidably see snippets of the made-for-TV special known as the royal wedding between Prince William (Windsor) and Kate Middleton. However, as the abovementioned documentary asks, does the Anglican church still deserve to be the state religion of the United Kingdom given that it is not even the largest religion in the land--while Catholicism is?

I needn't dredge the history of the Anglican church--to facilitate the divorce of Henry VIII from Catherine of Aragon and all that--but I have a more contemporary chip on my shoulder. Like many things formerly the dominion of the Catholic faith, Westminster Abbey itself was decommissioned as such in 1536 (the same year Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn met her grisly fate). So, let's just say that I have always viewed a church that got its start to facilitate a divorce as suspect. Add in its current self-destruct mode in which young people in the UK give it little notice and its failure to market itself in growth markets in the developing world and I wonder why it still receives official sanction.

Coming from an unwritten constitution tradition, I guess it's time the UK moved along with the times. While disestablishing the Anglican church may be a step too far for some nostalgic for days gone by, there is one thing I would like more than anything else to acknowledge the changing tide of religious presence in the country: Just as the Benedictine monks helped set up Westminster Abbey in the first place, so should their Catholic forebears take over the running of this UNESCO World Heritage Site. It's only fitting. Face it: the revenge of popery is at hand as it supplants whatever remains of Anglicanism.

Indeed, with its financial sustainability in question, Anglicanism is further in doubt. There are few to pack the pews with an ever-greying demographic of parishioners being the norm across most of the country. Rather (in)famously), there's also the matter of Anglican bishops serving in the House of Lords, making the UK the only country other than Iran to require the presence clerics in the legislature. Prospects for much-ballyhooed Anglican-Catholic reunification are remote, so it's time some notion of popular legitimacy manifested itself in the UK when it comes to religious observance.

Westminster Abbey should thus reflect the reconquista. Some churches are becoming extinct at a faster than others. Give the Catholic church its due for its ostensibly superior performance in saving British souls. Our marketing programme has proven its worth even in an increasingly secular age. Witness Pope Benedict XVII's rapturous, sold-out reception among other things. Given us back Westminster Abbey. And if the Anglicans want to stage made-for-TV events every so often featuring balding guys getting hitched, well, I have no problems with that ;-)

UPDATE: There's also an interesting discussion of the pillaging of monasteries by Henry VIII right about 1536. More fuel for righting historical grievances, I say.

Opiate of the Masses? Predicting Religion's Death

Let us begin today's missive on the contemporary fate of religion with Karl Marx's famous "opiate of the masses" passage:

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

I am not so sure if Karl Marx would welcome current global conditions which see religious participation on the wane. While folks are becoming less observant of religious strictures--witness the literal bastardization of Western societies--a counterargument can be made that his notion of "commodity fetishism" has replaced it in an era of increasingly commercialized intermediation of social ties.

No matter; I will not go into arguments about "Western moral decay" here. There will be other opportunities for delving into that. Rather, I wish to point out an interesting study mentioned by the BBC that suggests religious extinction is well underway in any number of societies. (Unsurprisingly, this study by Daniel Abrams, Haley Yaple, Richard Wiener appears in a physics and not a social science outlet.) Although the underlying mathematical specification of "perturbation theory" is complex, the gist of its argument in this particular context goes like this: Persons choose to participate socially in such things as religion insofar as the utility from doing so exceeds that from not. Among others, you can think of conformity (being "part of society") and networking opportunities as part of the benefits which have traditionally gone with religious participation.

But what if people no longer believe that these benefits obtain? Then you begin to observe social network effects of eroded participation. Hence, a simplified description of the model is as follows:

According to the model, a single parameter quantifying the perceived utility of adhering to a religion determines whether the unaffiliated group will grow in a society. The model predicts that for societies in which the perceived utility of not adhering is greater than the utility of adhering, religion will be driven toward extinction.

The conclusion this study comes up with is, as you may have guessed, rather deterministic in nature. That is, if current trends continue, further erosion of the perceived utility from religious participation will eventually lead to its extinction in any number of societies. What's more, they claim that their model's predictions fit well with census data from the societies under study. Note that they do not distinguish between religions but use two encompassing categories of "religious affiliation" (whichever it is) and "religious non-affiliation" for modelling purposes:

We have developed a general framework for modeling competition between social groups and analyzed the behavior of the model under modest assumptions. We found that a particular case of the solution fits census data on competition between religious and irreligious segments of modern secular societies in 85 regions around the world. The model indicates that in these societies the perceived utility of religious non-affiliation is greater than that of adhering to a religion, and therefore predicts continued growth of non-affiliation, tending toward the disappearance of religion [my emphasis].

Whether Marx would approve is an open question, but one thing is for sure at the moment: fortune favours the irreligious.

Why Merkel Fails Multiculturalism, Not Vice-Versa

It's interesting times in Germany-outwardly one of the most insular EU countries when it comes to discussions of multiculturalism. There is, of course, the still-unresolved matter of the French and Germans blocking several chapters for Turkish accession to the EU. (As a champion of Turkish EU membership, I even placed a clip of "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" from the hit musical Avenue Q.) Now, we have an even more vehement statement of cultural insularity care of Chancellor Angela Merkel. Addressing the youth wing of the CDU, she avers that "multiculturalism has failed." This, of course, is partially aimed at the large Turkish minority in Germany who came as gastarbeiter (guest workers) but never left:

In a speech to supporters, Chancellor Angela Merkel said multiculturalism in Germany has not been successful. Party leaders also sparred over immigrants' role in filling the country's shortage of skilled workers. Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have "utterly failed," according to Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"This approach has failed, utterly failed," said Merkel, head of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), in a speech to the party's young people's association in Potsdam on Saturday. She added that not enough was done in the past to support the movement. "The failures of the last 30 or 40 years cannot be resolved so quickly," she said.

The comments followed a similar speech from Horst Seehofer, head of the CDU's Bavarian sister party the CSU. On Friday he declared his party's stance against multiculturalism: "Multiculturalism is dead," he said, to delegates' applause. Seehofer's comments were criticized by Stephan Kramer, the general secretary of the Central Council of Jews. In an interview with the Rheinpfalz am Sonntag newspaper, he said the idea that immigrants from Turkey as well as Arab countries found it harder to integrate was "not just tactless, but downright irresponsible."

There are two components to this version of multiculturalism. The one dealing with those living in Germany having to speak German is common sense and can fit within a concept of multiculturalism for the obvious reason that socioeconomic interaction would be difficult outside of diaspora communities. However, overtures to making Christianity the standard religion are very worrying to me. While this speech may indeed be an empty political gesture, the chequered history of German race relations suggests it may nonetheless spur untoward sentiments.

"We feel tied to Christian values. Those who don't accept them don't have a place here," said the chancellor. "Subsidising immigrants" isn't sufficient, Germany has the right to "make demands" on them, she added, such as mastering the language of Goethe and abandoning practices such as forced marriages.

Merkel spoke a week after talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in which they pledged to do more to improve the often poor integration record of Germany's 2.5-million-strong Turkish community.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul, in a weekend interview, also urged the Turkish community living in Germany to master the language of their adopted country. "When one doesn't speak the language of the country in which one lives that doesn't serve anyone, neither the person concerned, the country, nor the society," the Turkish president told the Suedeutsche Zeitung. "That is why I tell them at every opportunity that they should learn German, and speak it fluently and without an accent. That should start at nurseries."

German President Christian Wulff was due for a five-day visit to Turkey and talks with the country's leaders on Monday.

Beyond the headline statement about multiculturalism failing, however, there is still much triangulation at play, with Merkel stating the need for Germany to attract skilled workers, who presumably would be able to speak fluent German. While making the usual conservative gestures about no-gooders sponging on the welfare state, she also says...

On Saturday, Merkel also underscored the continued importance of immigration to Germany and the job market, especially highly skilled migrants. She pointed out that every year, 200,000 Germans retired and left the job market, and weren't replaced, which could lead to companies leaving Germany due to labor shortages. The German Chamber of Industry and Commerce has said Germany's shortfall of about 400,000 skilled workers costs the country 1 percent in growth annually.

Merkel said, however, that older German workers should not be overlooked in favor of immigrant laborers, adding that immigrants should not be considered "until we have done all we can to help our own people to become qualified and give them a chance." For his part, Seehofer, in an interview with Focus magazine, said Germany should not use a lack of skilled workers as an excuse to open its doors to all comers, adding that demands made of those who wish to move to Germany should not be watered down. "We do not want to become the world's welfare office," he said.

It's the same all over the developed world, I guess. Skilled workers are welcome who do not disturb the postwar social fabric. At the same time, however, the welcome mat is always tenuous as scapegoating is not bound to any particular ethnic group. In that sense, immigrant-baiting at least is multicultural. As for making older workers work for longer, that is standard stuff in the immigration debate. Why hire foreigners when you can employ "your own people"?

Overall, I don't see the point in this speech other than repeating scare tactics that have been used by Germans at other points in time. Speaking fluent German is not a disavowal of multiculturalism, but forcing everyone to convert to Christianity would certainly be an affront. Not only is it very unlikely to happen, but it also offends many who would consider Germany as a destination for immigration. Let's face it: English speakers far outnumber German speakers, so asking even more for (1) Christian (2) skilled (3) German speakers is too much. (2) and (3) should suffice, no? And even (2) can be done away with in performing simpler service tasks.

And, like in the rest of Europe, the claim that Christianity is central to European or in this case German identity must be taken with a grain of salt. With church attendance still in fairly significant decline, Germany is at least as secular as the European average. In other words, politicians give religion lip service, but huge swathes of the populace couldn't care less about going to Sunday mass. The pretence is obvious, but hey, politics is largely symbolic. It's just that the rhetoric scares me given Germany's history.

UPDATE: A reader recommends this clip from Newsy.com.

Jesus Christ's Superstar: Benedict XVI in the UK

Did you mean to die like that?
Was that a mistake?
Or did you know your messy death
Would be a record breaker?

The irony of our benighted age is that the world's biggest celebrity is probably not any crowd-pleasing singer or movie star but a hardliner who tells you not to do a whole lot of things. (There are many agitated about this fact, I gather.) More curious still, he is not an inveterate attention-seeker to begin with, having celebrity thrust upon him by the college of cardinals. Be that as it may, there is no bully pulpit that beats being the Holy Father, whose only real fashion conceit are trademark red shoes. In 1995, Pope Benedict XVI's predecessor Pope John Paul II secured a place for our faith in the record books by gathering 4-5 million people in Luneta Park in Manila for World Youth Day--the largest crowd ever gathered for an occasion if memory serves me right. Despite being outwardly less charismatic, Benedict isn't too shabby, either, as his recent trip to the UK was the first ever official visit by a pontiff.

I needn't get into the well-known, gory details of the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England that stretches nearly half a millennium. So, it was remarkable that this change of heart would occur at so late a date. Not only was PM David Cameron on hand to greet the Benedict XVI, but also his predecessors Gordon Brown, Tony Blair (the controversial Catholic convert), John Major, and Margaret Thatcher. Though this wholehearted admirer of the current pontiff is miffed at Blair bigtime, I guess this show of force signifies the pulling power of His erstwhile emissary.

His visit was remarkably well-received as you can gather from the media coverage. The roads nearby were closed for most of the past few days where I live--a stone's throw from Victoria Station and Parliament. Many of the events in London were thus within easy walking distance: He held a joint service with the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams (head of the Church of England) on Friday at Westminster Abbey, and another on Saturday morning in Westminster Cathedral (the mother church of Roman Catholicism in the country). On Saturday afternoon, us pilgrims had the chance to see the Holy Father ourselves in Hyde Park. Needless to say, this state visit saw a fantastic turnout for the Pope as the faithful were out in force. On Sunday, he headed to the city of my alma mater, Birmingham, to say a mass for the beatification of John Henry Newman in Cofton Park.

You may be asking by now, "Where's the IPE here?" Saving souls is a highly organized and global enterprise. It certainly helps if the big boss can pull the punters in like the current pontiff. Sometime ago, I noted how Catholicism went ahead the Anglicanism as the largest religion here in the UK in terms of regular church attendance. The sad story, of course, is that Catholicism didn't "overtake" Anglicanism. Rather, attendance to the services of the former fell more slowly than that to the latter. However, the BBC points out that we may be reversing this trend as attendance has increased in the most recent recorded year after several years of drops. Also, the BBC's data sources indicate that Anglicanism was overtaken earlier than indicated in the service attendance sweepstakes, but for what it's worth:

The proof of the pudding will be in the partaking of the bread and wine in the near future. Who knows, maybe returning to the million mark is within reach. While Africa, Asia are certainly growth markets for Catholicism (and perhaps outer space), it's key to avoid squandering gains built over literally hundreds of years in Europe. May the enthusiasm shown for the once-in-a-lifetime visit of a frail older gentleman have good repercussions in Britannia. Don't you get me wrong now...