In the hospice where I volunteer, ALL patients go to heaven. None go to hell.

As a kid I was indoctrinated in the idea that if I committed a mortal sin, such as missing Mass on Sunday, and died without confessing it I was going to Hell. There were mortal sins and venial sins, the latter only condemning one to Purgatory for an indefinite period. Purgatory had all the aspects of Hell, including the absence of God, but had a limited stay.

But no one goes to Purgatory, either, and I KNOW there are folks with less than exemplary lives who pass through our doors.

It seems the only people who go to Hell are those who die at a distance, those we don’t know well, folks in the next county or State. Our own, the ones we know, they are immune from Hell.

But what does that mean? The “others” go to Hell, ours don’t, but “ours” are “others” too.

I think this is a major breakdown in discipline and theology. I believe Christianity has a problem here they will simply have to continue to ignore, because there is no good answer.

(I also believe that’s why the US ALWAYS fails to try to understand opponents. If we understood them we would be more eager and able to negotiate settlements to differences, and the US wants to use power.)

P.S. Here’s the source of the chart.

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity

The question is, does welfare spending discourage religiosity, or does religiosity discourage welfare spending?

My guess is that naturally authoritarian societies tend to be more religious. Although America was originally settled by people from Western Europe (which is highly secular now), there was a strong selection effect at work; people came to America not so much to escape religious persecution as to be able to practice it with impunity.

The founding fathers understood this, and wisely included in the new nation’s constitution an Enlightenment spirit of secular humanism and religious freedom, and political guarantees of freedom of conscience. But they were exceptional men, and not necessarily representative of the culture and population of the new nation.

It may not be politically correct to point this out, but I feel this explains to a great extent the constellation of related cultural characteristics that still largely identifies and is associated with Americans of Northern European descent. Americans from Southern and Eastern European and New World roots were more economic and political refugees than religious ones. They were not proselytizing, they just wanted to be left alone.

This constellation is comprised of nationalism, racism, militarism, nativism, laissez-faire capitalism, cultural authoritaianism, anti-intellectualism, intolerance and religious fundamentalism (usually Protestant), not to mention a feeling of cultural superiority and exceptionalism. Although perhaps not noticeable to Americans of Anglo-Saxon roots, even fully secular ones, this is strikingly obvious to those with deep roots and awareness of their own cultural conections to the Old Country.

Neither do I mean to imply this “national character” as being a wholly negative characteristic, either. “Traditional” Americans also exhibit an extreme sense of civic and community responsibility, a natural generosity, great hospitality to strangers and what may be loosely described as a sense of personal responsibility and moderation in personal and emotional habits which is quite admirable and beneficial, although it may be interpreted by outsiders as coldness and indifference. Americans take their place in line, not becaused they are sheep and easily ordered about, but because it is the right thing to do.

Of course, these are all general characteristics, not genetic factors, and they are noticeable as cultural trends applicable on a sociological level. Individuals, like individuals everywhere, will always exhibit great variation. But I don’t think it can be denied that there are also two basic waves of immigration that comprise this country, those primarily from the British Isles came during colonial times and shortly after, and the great waves of immigration that came after the industrial revolution, mostly from Southern and Eastern Europe, and now, Latin America. Cultural assimilation has taken place, but it usually lags behind. The Irish and Italians have only recently started to become fully accepted, and the Africans, who have been here from the very beginning, still have a long way to go.

That original population feels itself threatened, in a minority, and feels a sense of unease and discomfort. I believe this to be a major component in the so-called “culture wars” and climate of political divisiveness that seems to be becoming a major component of American life.

I know most of the Cubans I knew growing up were nominally Catholic, (I was actually baptized!) but I can’t think of anyone we knew who went to Mass regularly. Usually it was just on big religious occasions and festivals, and even then, it was mostly elderly women. I don’t recall ever seeing anyone in Tampa actually cross themselves, not even at funerals. Occasionally you might see a religious medal worn as jewelry, or a home shrine to the Patron Saint of Cuba, the Cobre Virgin of Charity, but even then this was mostly grandma’s department, and she often mixed the Catholic rites with a little Santeria voodoo. Cubans are not religious but they are often quite superstitious, and the Church looks the other way.

I asked my cousin Rudy about this and he said it was because the Catholic Church sided with the Spanish Crown during the Wars of Independence, and the people never really forgave them. Even today, the priests and nuns are usually Spanish, not Cuban. The wars were very brutal, hundreds of thousands died and the Spaniards were ruthless, Cuba was their last colony in the New World and they were determined to hang on to it at all costs.

And I do recall that when I was growing up, Cubans, both in the old country and the US, were not shy about getting divorces or abortions. Divorce was not illegal in Cuba, and abortions, although not strictly legal, were a lot easier to get than here.