Presidential candidate John McCain inspired an explosion of controversy with his answer to a question about recent poll results: "I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as  Christian nation," the Senator said, but then added: "But I say that in the broadest sense.  The lady that lifts her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, 'I only welcome Christians... But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principals.'"

McCain, in other words, understood that the same leaders who drafted a secular constitution prohibiting a single established religion wanted society at large to remain religions.  In his Farewell Address, George Washington declared: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."

Our Founders believed the nation's enduring Christian faith would protect, rather than threaten, its freedoms - and McCain's comments deserve respect, not condemnation. 

In a recent Democratic candidate's debate, John Edwards provided a shocking answer to a provocative question.  He was asked about a controversy in Lexington, Massachusetts, where parents of second graders complained that their children had been exposed to a story in which two handsome princes got married to one another and lived happily ever after.

Edwards not only indicated he would have been pleased to see his own second grader exposed to any and all pro-gay propaganda, but offered a pathetic abdication of his role in providing values for his own kids:

"Even in second grade... I don't want to impose my view.  Nobody made me God.  I don't get to decide on behalf of my family or my children.  I don't get to impose on them what I believe is right."

A leader who's so shaky in his values that he won't try to convey them to his kids can hardly expect to be an effective President who champions values for the nation at large.

For years, I’ve taken a lonely but outspoken stand against ubiquitous and, in fact, nearly universal lies about the state of marriage and the prevalence of divorce in the United States. In the past in this space I’ve used the authoritative Census Bureau figures to prove that the “50% divorce rate” that everyone loves to cite is, in fact, a pernicious myth: nearly 70% of first marriages manage to last until one of the partners dies.

On Saturday, I was pleased to see America’s “Journal of Record,” the New York Times, running a valuable column similarly decrying the current tendency to inflate and exaggerate the purported “collapse” of the institution of marriage. This column, by two professors of business and public policy at the prestigious Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, counts as especially significant because this same New York Times had previously run numerous articles by the shameless and agenda-driven Sam Roberts, who outrageously manipulates available data in order to prove his favorite point: that traditional marriage is finished in the USA and we need to get used to a brave new world of fresh romantic arrangements.

In any event, Professors Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers take on Roberts and all the other wedlock-is-dead advocates with their powerful, persuasive piece.

“The great myth about divorce is that marital breakup is an increasing threat to American families, with each generation finding their marriages less stable than those of their parents,” they write. “The story of ever-increasing divorce is a powerful narrative. It is also wrong. In fact, the divorce rate has been falling continuously over the past quarter-century, and is now at its lowest level since 1970. While marriage rates are also declining, those marriages that do occur are increasingly more stable. For instance, marriages that began in the 1990s were more likely to celebrate a 10^th anniversary than those that started in the 1980s, which, in turn, were also more likely to last than marriages that began in the 1970s.”

Near the conclusion of their column, Stevenson and Wolfers cite specific numbers: “The narrative or rising divorce is also completely at odds with counts of divorce certificates, which show the divorce rate as having peaked at 22.8 divorces per 1,000 married couples in 1979 and to have fallen by 2005 to 16.7…. The facts are that divorce is down, and today’s marriages are more stable than they have been in decades.”

Given these figures, and the easily available and profoundly reassuring news about the persistent strength of the institution of marriage, how can we explain the widespread claim that traditional, life-long marriage is outdated and increasingly irrelevant?

The left promotes the lie in order to indicate that timeless family institutions no longer apply in the 21^st Century, and we need new, experimental, exciting and “liberating” arrangements--- like living together without commitment, or single mother households, open multiple partner relationships, or gay marriage, or whatever. The right goes along with the claims about moral collapse because the bad news conforms to the gloomy, “we’ve-lost-America” temperament of too many conservatives, as well as confirming the (often ill-informed) nostalgia for the recent past.

Of course, people of conscience and foresight need to work to defend the institution of marriage and, yes, the traditional family faces multiple threats and challenges that ought to give us pause. But one hardly helps the cause of matrimony by going along with the dumb and dishonest idea that the battle to preserve it is already lost. The column in the New York Times bears the appropriate title: “Divorced From Reality.” Thoughtful conservatives can’t afford that sort of divorce—and need to fight and win our crucial battles within the parameters of the real world.

The fact that religious people regularly express grater happiness and satisfaction than their unbelieving neighbors doesn’t necessarily prove that God exists or that the Bible represents an accurate expression of his will. It does, however, indicate three clear benefits of church or synagogue involvement for both the individual and his society.

Recently on my radio show I discussed a recent column in the Wall Street Journal by my friend Arthur Brooks, professor at Syracuse University. He pointed out that the 30% of Americans who attend religious services once a week or more (“the religious” in his terminology) are nearly than three times as likely to describe themselves as “very happy” than the 20% who never go to church (“the secular”).

Though Arthur doesn’t attempt any explanation for the “happiness dividend” stemming from church attendance, three important factors suggest themselves.

1. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO EXPRESS GRATITUDE, AND “COUNTING YOUR BLESSINGS” CONTRIBUTES POWERFULLY TO HAPPINESS. For Christians, Jews and adherents of nearly all mainstream religions, giving thanks to the Almighty represents an essential element of prayer. In Judaism, the daily introductory service (known as Pesukai de Zimrah) consists of about fifteen minutes of “songs and hymns of praise.” Songwriter Irving (“God Bless America”) Berlin wrote the wonderful lyric: “When at night I cannot sleep/I count my blessings instead of sheep.” It’s, of course, a major contributing factor to happiness to focus on a glass-half-full attitude and to try to concentrate on your good fortune rather than your frustrations. Religious people are far more likely to develop thankful personalities not only because gratitude and praise for the Creator plays a role in nearly every literature but because people of faith know whom to thank.

2. PEOPLE OF FAITH BENEFIT FROM EMBRACING TIME-TESTED, CLEARLY ARTICULATED STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR.  One of the dilemmas of modern man involves tormenting confusion and ceaseless uncertainty about determining the appropriate path through life. Traditional religions lay down useful, supportive standards – along with mechanisms for winning forgiveness when (not if) you fall short. In place of muddled expectations on contradictory messages about right-and-wrong, people of faith benefit from centuries of teaching on the appropriate choices for conscientious individuals. In Judaism, the term for religious law is “HaLakha” – or, literally translated, the path.

3. RELIGIOUS PEOPLE GET THE OCCASION AND THE CONTEXT FOR CONNECTION AND COMMUNITY. Regardless of how boring religious services can sometimes seem, they provide one incontestable blessing: they provide a framework every week (or sometimes even more often than that) for people to establish the neighborly ties that constitute community. Most Americans remain lonely and isolated, getting to know the characters on TV better than the family that actually lives next door. Religious people, by contrast, regularly encounter the same folks at worship services or Bible class and so manage to build friendships and connection that last a lifetime. Countless studies show that reliable intimacy with others makes people healthier, more productive and notably happier.

To recognize the importance of each of these three factors doesn’t require a confession of faith; an honest agnostic or atheist should readily recognize that religion has proven mankind’s most durable institution because it predictably delivers certain rewards. If happiness counts as one of those rewards —based on the gratitude, behavioral standards, and neighborly connection that religion promotes – maybe even cynical unbelievers ought to reconsider the advantages provided by participation in faith-based communities. 

The new film “Lions for Lambs” with Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford won’t hit theaters until November 9, but the screenwriter has already announced that his purpose was to show “how ridiculous the war was” and to scold Americans who for electing “a guy who doesn’t care to read any military history.” The film’s political agenda helped win quick approval from Hollywood honchos and the New York Times reported that “the project may have set a new record for speed.”  Nevertheless, director Redford worries that the film may fail because the public’s too stupid to embrace it. “America doesn’t like to look at itself,” he declared. “That’s why Carter got booted. He had the gall to tell people, ‘We’re not doing so good.’ That’s why Reagan got elected: ‘Morning in America.’” Robert Redford’s amazing, enduring preference for Carter to Reagan represents one more glaring, laughable illustration of Hollywood’s isolation from the American mainstream.

The appalling results of a recent government health survey in Egypt indicate that many Islamic nations need profound cultural change before they can make progress with Democratic principles. According to the investigators an amazing 96% of all married, divorced and widowed Egyptian women had been subjected to the brutal practice of genital cutting. Performed mostly on helpless girls between the ages of 7 and 13, this cruel tradition eliminates the possibility of normal sexual satisfaction and produces a long list of lifelong risks and painful, permanent consequences. To its credit, the authoritarian Egyptian government has launched a major national campaign to halt this nightmarish abuse, despite the fact that most citizens – particularly outside Cairo – want to continue mutilating their daughters. When the populace chooses to sustain barbaric medieval practices -- as it does in Egypt and in many other Islamic and African states-- it’s obvious that free elections alone won’t bring such nations into the 21^st century.

Why do some political scandals grab national headlines but others make only local news? A recent trial highlighting the appalling corruption of Detroit’s mayor certainly deserves more media attention: a jury awarded $6.5 million of city funds to two cops who guarded Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick before making charges about his drunken orgies in the Mayor’s mansion, cover-up of drunk driving, and diversion of public money to frolics with his mistress and mollify his wife. Mayor Kilpatrick charged the jury with racism, but both of the officers he fired for reporting on his misdeeds were black and one of them, was a deputy police chief. If the Mayor had been a white Republican, the judgment against him – with jurors flatly calling him a liar – would have rocked the nation, but our media culture chooses to ignore this lurid and appalling case that happens to center on a youthful, African-American Democrat – best known up till now for his two diamond earrings.

After running for US Senate three times with disastrous results (drawing 38%, 29%, and 27%, respectively, as the Republican nominee in two different states) and after two marginal and embarrassing Presidential campaigns, Alan Keyes has decided to make yet another race for the nation’s highest office. He announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination on Janet Parshall’s radio show last Friday; six days later, he spent an hour talking about it on the radio with me.

For the most part, I let the man speak (filibuster, really) with only occasional interruptions to try to get answers to direct questions. The normal give-and-take of the interview format doesn’t suit the Keyes style of free-flowing eloquence and eruptive, volcanic passion. The orator’s crisp diction, elegant verbosity and forceful declamations often serve to mask illogical leaps and slippery connections that might seem laughable from a less polished presenter.

At the end of our mostly frustrating hour, the candidate finally provided one concise, focused response to an inquiry posed by a sympathetic caller: she wanted to know who Keyes might select as his running mate after he claimed the GOP nomination.

To my amazement, Dr. Keyes admitted that he’d given the question “a great deal of thought” (an astonishing declaration for a fringe candidate who’s been in the race less than a week) and mentioned that he would seriously consider choosing either Sam Brownback or Mike Huckabee to join the ticket with him. He expressed warm respect for both the Kansas Senator and the former Arkansas Governor.

The contradiction couldn’t have been more glaring or more obvious: just minutes before, Dr. Keyes had explained his candidacy as a moral necessity because of the lack of worthy candidates in the Republican field. He had claimed that his decision to make a belated entry into the race arose from the utter incapacity of the announced candidates to raise the moral issues which need to be emphasized.

Those announced candidates include, of course, both Brownback and Huckabee.

If they’re worthy of installing in the Vice Presidency, just the proverbial heart-beat away from ultimate power, then why aren’t they worthy of support as Presidential candidates? How can Dr. Keyes on the one hand praise his two rivals for their moral clarity and decency then on the other hand condemn the entire Republican field as so lacking in morality and decency that he needed to join the fray yet again?

Among the many misfires in Alan Keyes’ checkered career, one of the more curious involved a short-lived TV program on MSNBC called, oddly enough,  “Alan Keyes is Making Sense.”

No one could have appended that title to our on-air interchange this afternoon. The better title might have been: “Alan in Wonderland.”

The story of an “unauthorized” whale hunt in the State of Washington highlights the dangerous nature or our guilt-ridden double standard toward Native Americans. Grey Whales only recently came off the Endangered Species List, and the government forbids commercial harvest of the great beasts, but the Makah Tribe won permission to kill whales each year to “honor” their culture and treaty rights from 1885. But one renegade band wouldn’t wait for the scheduled kill and went out to blast a whale with a high-powered rifle—not even bringing its carcass to shore. Memories of misdeeds by white settlers toward Indians lead to special privileges --including Indian casinos, cigarette and fireworks distribution, and environmental rape of fish and forests. Treating Indians as perpetual victims and welfare recipients, and failing to apply the same standards we impose on whites, amounts to rancid racism—treating people differently solely on the basis of the color of their skin.

Myths and lies about the Vietnam War help to distort the current debate about the War in Iraq. Advocates of immediate US withdrawal tout the idea that our departure from Vietnam brought peace to that war-ravaged country but in truth the battles raged on for at least eight full years after US troops departed in 1973, along with genocide, concentration camps and desperate refugees in Vietnam and Cambodia. Moreover, the much heralded US “Peace Movement” didn’t end the war—and may have prolonged it by encouraging our enemies to keep fighting and actually building support for President Nixon’s war policies. Ordinary Americans felt hostility and resentment toward angry demonstrators and other radicals. The biggest demonstration of them all – the Mobilization Against the War on November 15, 1969 – brought 500,000 protestors to Washington, but pushed Nixon’s approval rating to an all-time high of 68 per cent. The President denounced the anti-war hordes in a memorable and effective televised speech, insisting that they didn’t speak for the nation’s “silent majority.” The surge of public support for that address, along with the widespread distaste for the demonstrators, actually encouraged a heavy majority of Democrats, who controlled both houses of Congress, to vote for resolutions backing the President. One can only hope that the excesses of Move On and other shrill anti-war militants will provoke a similar backlash in today’s debates.  

The odd title “In the Valley of Elah” reflects the odd, outrageous content of an awful new movie  (which opened in limited release Friday) starring Tommy Lee Jones, Susan Sarandon and Charlize Theron. The film focuses on the purportedly ruined, violent degenerate lives of returning Iraq war veterans but takes its title from the Bible. In the midst of the picture, the main character, Tommy Lee Jones, painstakingly retells the story of David and Goliath as taking place“In the Valley of Elah.” Does the title then signify that Jones himself represents David? He’s a grieving father trying to uncover the mystery of his soldier son’s murder. This would mean the movie sees the US Army as Goliath. Or else, with its emphasis on gruesome atrocities by drugged-out US troops against innocent Iraqis, director Paul Haggis paints America itself as roaring, over-confident Goliath, and the insurgents as little David. Either way, the film is a stilted, ham-handed insult to all who wear the uniform.

The sixth anniversary of the September 11^th attacks should have inspired remembrance and gratitude, since we’ve so far been spared the horror of another terrorist assault on American soil.

But unfortunately, commemorations this year were marred by a disturbing trend in our culture: polls show more than 30% of our fellow citizens believe 9/11 was an “inside job.” The so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” obsesses on a range of ludicrous suspicions about Building Seven, a missile—not a plane—striking the Pentagon, dynamite charges at the base of the twin towers, and so forth.

Aside from the poisonous impact on public discourse of such lunatic notions, the people who focus on these theories do incalculable damage to themselves. Someone who entertains the idea that his own government is part of a mass-murdering conspiracy will not only destroy his political effectiveness, but also make success in career and marriage far less likely.

Normal, productive individuals prefer to avoid long-term association with paranoid nuts.

Quarterback Michael Vick may never play again after pleading guilty to a dog-fighting charge, but Denver Broncos running back Travis Henry signed a $25 million contract earlier this year—despite his record as a dead-beat dad with nine out-of-wedlock children with nine different women. At least seven of the mothers went to court to get 28-year-old Henry to help support his off-spring—even as he spent $100,000 on a new car and $146,000 on jewelry for himself. Even if he obeys court orders to send money, the long-term damage to society remains severe: children growing up in fatherless households face innumerable emotional, educational, and even criminal problems. America will only begin to make progress against the plague of out-of-wedlock birth when celebrity skunks like Travis Henry fall from their privileged positions and, as columnist DeWayne Wickham rightly demands, the NFL takes cruel treatment of children at least as seriously as horrible abuse of dogs.