[JerryLove]

There's an element of American society who seems to long for the "golden years of morality"... and obviously I feel some of that element is here.

But I was thinking today. That groups ideal seems to be the perception Ozzy-and-Harriate [spelling] times of around 1950 while the antithesis seems to be the Ozzy Ozborne "free love" of around 1970. They seem to argue that if we would raise our children as they did back in 1950 then society would not be like 1970.

But the teens and adults who made the 1970's baby-boom are the exact ones who were raised in the 1940s and 1950. In effect, Ozzy Nelson did raise Ozzy Ozborne.

The result of that "wholseome, moral, nuclear family" indeed seems to be exactly what said element thinks it prevents... not that I think The Nelsons were the norm even in the vaunted 50s.

Thoughts?

[Ax]

I would tend to blame our view of the "nuclear family" on a lot of misconceptions in the first place. There never has been and never will be perfect, but it is however hard to deny that our morals/ethics are in the vast decline.

Personally I would blame war and depression for the hippie movement and of course blame a lot of our high divorce rate on hippie values.

I understand what you're saying in saying that these people were raised in the fourties and fifties and a lot of "Christians" are trying to push for this "wholesome, moral, nuclear family" are wrong because that way raised the hippies. I'd have to agree this is when they were raised, however, it's the outside social/economic/political woes that I think pushed them away from traditional values because they took a look and said "hey this is where those values lead us, lets change"...

Does this make any sense?

I think if the depression and WW2 had never happened we'd still be living in that same legalistic world.

[katmetal]

I've heard this preached about in regards to the whole 1962/God being kicked out of schools issue & morality took a big hit then.

http://www.coralridge.org/impact/2004_Jan_Pg5.htm

There are charts I've seen pastors use that graph violence from the early part of the century onward, & in the year 1962 it dramatically rose & has been climbing ever since. (Sorry, I googled for the chart & couldn't find it)

[JerryLove]

but it is however hard to deny that our morals/ethics are in the vast decline.

I don't find it hard.... but I'm curious what litemus test we should use to tell ascent from decline.

Personally I would blame war and depression for the hippie movement and of course blame a lot of our high divorce rate on hippie values.

Really? Or longest perriod of peace in the past 100 years was during the post-Vietnam / pre-Iraq war "Hippie era".

Depression? The great depression was in the 1920s, well back in the "Good old days". The next major depression was in 1987, just after the Christian revivalist movement had gained real political clout. The most recent was just after a neo-conservative president was added to a neo-conservitive congress.

Now I'm not trying to blame the right wing for depressions... that would be far to generalizing; but it does run quite opposite to your linkage.

And finally divorce. Christians get divorced more often than agnostics or athiests, and fundamentalist Christians get divorced more often than moderate Christians. So again, your claim seems quite contra-indicated.

I've no doubt that divorce in general in the west has risen, but I suspect that has more to do with the ability of women to survive single, and a loss of social stigma, than it does with a reduction in morality.

Here's a question for you. Do you think every US soldier taking advantage of the US-run brothels in WWII was single?

it's the outside social/economic/political woes that I think pushed them away from traditional values because they took a look and said "hey this is where those values lead us, lets change"...

In the 1950s? Which ouside woes do you think lead to "modern values"?

I think if the depression and WW2 had never happened we'd still be living in that same legalistic world.

The Roaring 20s? The ear when the biggest celeberties were mobsters and bank robbers and everyone spent their leisure time at the "speak easy"?

There are charts I've seen pastors use that graph violence from the early part of the century onward, & in the year 1962 it dramatically rose & has been climbing ever since. (Sorry, I googled for the chart & couldn't find it)

I suspect that the data doesn't actually support the conclusion.

Of course, if the "removal of God" (whatever that means) from school is the (overnight according to what you've indicated, which is odd as the people committing the crimes would have already had more than a decade of "Godly" schools) proximate cause of violence; then we should see a correlation between the two. The prisons should be full of agnostics/athists (they actually are substantially under-represented), and religious areas (the south) should see considerably less violence.

With even a layman knowledge of the 1920s, or the 1860s, I can see a rate of violence at least on par with the modern era.

I would actually excpect a steady ncrease in crime over time as the structure of society makes it harder for someone to "just vanish", as reporting gets more emphasized, and as technology lets us catch more foul play (the town's never had a murder, but there are an awful lot of accidents). What there is would await statistics.

Try http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
Murder rate 1960 - 5.1 per 100,000
Murder rate 1965 - 5.1 per 100,000
In between was actually a bit lower (4.8).

We peak in 1980 at 10.2, but by 2000 we'e dipped back down to 5.5 (the Clinton years showed a steady decline in murders), and the last number was 5.6. Up from 1960, but not too astonishngly so and certainly not showing the trending you are suggesting.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Here's a question for you. Do you think every US soldier taking advantage of the US-run brothels in WWII was single?

Not that I entirely doubt this, but can you cite this statement? I know the Japanese had sanctioned brothers (as did the Germans) using females from enemy territories as well as their own prostitutes, and I know US soldiers frequented urban Japanese brothels, but are you asserting there were military-run brothels in the European theater as well, instead of just blind eyes turned to usage of local established brothels?

[JerryLove]

I recall a History Channel discussion on the campaign in SE Asia and the US setting up an army run brothel, but in searching I'm overrun by the citations to the use of Japanese brothels (likely because the "comfort women" were pretty much all forced, while Thai prostitutes were arguably voulentary). I do find some references to sanctioned brothels in Vietnam during that war, and to the US sanctioning of brothels in Korea's "America Town".

I'll see if I can find a better cite.. but if you wonder whether the US government would run a brothel at all, I refer you tothe Mustang Ranch in Nevada after it was seized by the IRS.

[TunerSteve]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

And finally divorce. Christians get divorced more often than agnostics or athiests, and fundamentalist Christians get divorced more often than moderate Christians. So again, your claim seems quite contra-indicated.

I never can get a grip on divorce statistics. I suspect that Christians are much more likely to marry in the first place. Many agnostics, or athiests probably co-habitate without the benefits of marriage. When these relationship dissolve, there isn't a court record to indicate a failed relationship, and the numbers won't be reflected.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by TunerSteve

I never can get a grip on divorce statistics. I suspect that Christians are much more likely to marry in the first place. Many agnostics, or athiests probably co-habitate without the benefits of marriage. When these relationship dissolve, there isn't a court record to indicate a failed relationship, and the numbers won't be reflected.

What about the Hindus, Muslims, and Mormons?

[TunerSteve]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

What about the Hindus, Muslims, and Mormons?

I don't know the statistics for divorces among those faiths, I was simply commenting on comparision between Christians and agnostics/athiests.

If I were to make a guess I would probably suspect the divorce rate among Christians is likely still higher than those religions you mention.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

There's an element of American society who seems to long for the "golden years of morality"... and obviously I feel some of that element is here.

But I was thinking today. That groups ideal seems to be the perception Ozzy-and-Harriate [spelling] times of around 1950 while the antithesis seems to be the Ozzy Ozborne "free love" of around 1970. They seem to argue that if we would raise our children as they did back in 1950 then society would not be like 1970.

But the teens and adults who made the 1970's baby-boom are the exact ones who were raised in the 1940s and 1950. In effect, Ozzy Nelson did raise Ozzy Ozborne.

The result of that "wholseome, moral, nuclear family" indeed seems to be exactly what said element thinks it prevents... not that I think The Nelsons were the norm even in the vaunted 50s.

Thoughts?

Clever point.

My preferred response is just, "everyone is wishing for a golden age. The people of the golden age to which you refer were wishing for a golden age. Get over the golden age," but yours is very clever.

[danlong]

I know this is an old post, but felt it needed some qualification.

What the OP was describing should not be construed as some Ozzie generation and it's reflected morals later. Unless you look at the Harriets, June and Ward Cleaver and such and note the Spock baby syndrome. From Dr Benjamin Spock who first wrote on child rearing as needing to be permissive, no spanking and lots of "love (?)).

The runaway results even appalled the good Doctor such that he revisited his writing affirming the need for structure, but the freight train was already a runaway, not to be stopped. That's where the "other" Ozzie came from.....

[JerryLove]

Good except that it's entirely false, these criticisms portrayed an ignorance of what Spock had actually written, and/or a political bias against Spock's left-wing political activities. Spock himself, in his autobiography, pointed out that he had never advocated permissiveness; also, that the attacks and claims that he had ruined American youth only arose after his public opposition to the Vietnam war. He regarded these claims as ad hominem attacks, whose political motivation and nature was clear.

Secondly, our poster child here (Ozzy Ozborne) was "beaten quite a bit by his father", an English steel-plant worker... so of-course your cause and effect is quite untrue.

Of course, we also have the pre-spock "flapper era" of the "roaring 20s", to disprove the notion that it was a sudden appearance of "permissive parenting". (of course, we can look in modern times at the "youth" (which apparenly goes into his 40s) of such tough-parent icons as GWB who "honestly doens't remember if he took cocaine".

Next-to-finally, as the recorded behavior of American troops in Europe and Asia shows, the golden years weren't golden. We are discussing a time when the US millitary ran brothels (for example).

Finally: There's a rule against resurrecting dead posts.