Gauracandra

Yes, animals slaughter other animals to feast on them. Thats the point. We hope to be something better than just an animal. We hope to become refined individuals, and this starts with our behaviors and what we eat. Hopefully if we are refined, we can elevate our thoughts to something higher than just the base animal needs of eating, sleeping, mating, and defending.

I forgot to mention the ACLU tried to force New Mexico to change the city name of Las Cruces (the cross). What about Corpus Christi (the body of Christ), or San Diego (Saint Diego), or San Francisco (Saint Francis), or Los Angeles (the angels). They tried against Las Cruces if you can believe it, but lost. So now they are going for a cross on a city emblem. They start small, and like Animal Farm, before long people will have forgotten what happened and think it was always like this.

In the U.S. Constitution this is the only mention of religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Thats it!!! So from this we have the ACLU saying the Boy Scouts can not camp on state or federal property. Why? Because the Boy Scouts believe in God. Ok, lets look at this logically. A Boyscout camp sits around in Yosemite cooking over a camp fire. Now someone tell me where that implicates Congress in ESTABLISHING religion. Congress is doing nothing. Of course then we have "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If the Boy Scouts can't use federal property because of their belief in God, then you have effectively prohibited their free exercise of religion. This is why the Constitution must be read literally. You will not find any right to abortion anywhere in the Constitution. So when the Supreme Court makes up a law taking away the rights of States to regulate abortion, is it any wonder that the public gets angry? They undermine the democratic process to allow the voters to set standards in their communities.

Yes, that was one of those cases where changing the Constitution was justified. Many of the framers of the constitution wanted slavery abolished, but feared that in the early stages of the formation of the country it would be too controversial and would split the country. It was believed that they could tackle that issue perhaps 15 or 20 years later. But it kept being pushed back and back, until the country literally was torn in two close to 100 years later during the Civil War. People have stopped trying to persuade one another of the superiority of their ideas. Instead they now just want to control the Supreme Court because they can manufacture laws. A bit of a side issue - Here is Amendment 1 of the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Here is Amendment 10 to the Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Now, for instance we have lawyers who are suing cities in the U.S. trying to have a cross removed from the city insignia. Why? Because a cross is unconstitutional, so they say. No it is not!!!! In the first place we can debate what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means given that the founders certainly utilized Christian traditions. The founders were primarily trying not to have a state religion, like the Anglican church in England. However, this does not mean that religion cannot be part of government. But I'm getting sidetracked. Notice what it says "Congress shall make no law..." Then what else does it say? 10th Amendment - all other powers not specifically allocated to the government, nor prohibited to the states, are left to the states and the people. Now if you read this directly, there is nothing "unconstitutional" with a city having a cross on their symbol. Set aside whether Congress can have Christian symbols. The constitution lays out the powers the Government has, what it can and can't do, and lays out a few things states cannot do, and then says "Everything else not mentioned here is left to the states and to the people" In other words if a City wants to have a cross on their emblem, there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Why? Because the constitution doesn't say anything one way or the other. Its left to the people. But if you don't read the constitution in a literal, constructionist manner, then you say "Since Congress can't support a religion, then neither can any element of government even if it is as small as a town council." The problem is the constitution doesn't say "Town councils shall not...." It only says "Congress shall not..." If we stick with a literal reading it becomes very clear.

I oppose gay marriage. However, I also oppose a constitutional ban because I don't think the constitution should be monkeyed around with. Now its a ban on gay marriage. Tomorrow its a ban on Christian displays. The constitution should delineate basic rights and obligations of the government, not restrict rights. Its a very specific document. The federal government has certain obligations. These are listed. All other items not expressly in the constitution are left to the states and the people. The problem I have is this notion that the constitution is a "living document" which allows its to be constantly maleable. The constitution is a CONTRACT. It is a contract between the governed and the government. Who has a living contract that changes in time? A contract must be read in a very exacting manner, none of this open door, change with the times business. Now there are times changes can and should be made to the contract. But these should be very, very rare. Unfortunately, now much of the constitution is meaningless. If its not to be a strict constructionist reading, then all you have is Republicans and Democrats trying to get their guys on the Supreme court. This prevents a real discussion of the issues. For instance abortion. Since the Supreme Court has ruled on it, and found a right not expressly found in the constitution, all the politicians can take a cowardly way out and pretend there is nothing they can do. If on the other hand they had to pass a law supporting abortion, 1st, 2nd, 3rd Trimester, in each and every state (everything not expressly stated in the constitution is left to the states and the people) it would create a real discussion of the issue. Instead both parties just fight to get their guys on the court and the law becomes pretty much a grab bag.

This week's episode is a repeat of this program.

All technology starts off with the wealthy. I don't have DSL but the rich do. The auto was once considered a toy for the rich. Now even the poor have a car. I live better than the king of England ever did 100 years ago, and I'm just a poor shlub. I have better food, better healthcare, more entertainment options, indoor plumbing, indoor heating, hot water, better travel options etc.... I am richer than kings and 99.9999% of the people in history. All due to technology. I'll tell you what. When you create your natural farming life I'll stop supporting all these technological advantages. Until then its just easy words. I'll tell you how. They led a brutish, hard life. They died at 35 if they even made it to 2. They worked 15 hours a day of back breaking work. And when the weather turned bad in a year, they were destroyed. I can point to plenty of "natural" countries in the world if you'd like to try it yourself.

If they succeed I'll be cheering. I have no problem with technology. I'm glad there are people out there who are smarter than I am, more talented than I am, and more adventurous than I am. As for "plowing a field", sounds like typical devotee "utopianism". Everyone wants to be a gentleman farmer (sit back and let the hired hands do the work). Nothings stopping you from buying some land and growing your own food. And of course you are using the internet, a huge, global technology. Or driving your car. You think if everyone had horses we'd be living in a wonderful world? How about 100 tons of horse manure to pick up from the streets every day? Now thats pollution!!! I'm glad everyone in the world isn't like me /images/graemlins/smile.gif we'd be in the stone ages.

Here is China's space ship, Shenzhou 5, that took up ONE astronaut into space. The Shenzhou 5 is essentially based on pilferred Russian technology (though China denies this). The U.S. now has a space shuttle, which is different because its meant to carry large payloads. Still, its pretty funny to see the size difference. Spaceship One will carry 3 people into space. Not deep space, but I believe they will be like 65 miles above the earth and weightless for 2 or 3 minutes. It seems to me once you get to zero gravity, its only a little bit more of a push until you are in deep space. The scary thing is Spaceship One is dangerous as it has ZERO heat shields. When they reenter the atmosphere they are going to tilt their wings to 45 degrees to create a parachute type setup, kind of like a badmitton birdie, to create drag and keep the temperatures down. But if they don't hit this exactly they will burn up upon reentry. So its a very risky move.

If this succeeds its going to make the Russian, Chinese, and U.S. space agencies look a bit awkward. Why? Because they have built these huge machines to get a few people into space. China just became the third country in the world to successfully put a man into space - with a huge rocket ship. This company has effectively built their space ship in their garage. It was 40 people in an airline hangar. They received like $20 million in seed money from billionaire Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft). I don't know the total price tag, but if the total cost is in that $20-50 million range, thats really, really, REALLY cheap to creat a ship that can be able to get a person into space. Sure you can't carry anything like satelites etc... but just to get a person up and then back its great. And they've apparently made it all with existing technologies but in unique combinations.

Tomorrow morning 9:30 A.M. Eastern, 6:30 A.M. Pacific U.S.A., not sure India time, but there will be the first privately funded launch of a space ship to carry a person into space. Its called SpaceShip One and the launch I'm sure will be carried live by all major networks. It should be real cool. Here is their website: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/ And a picture:

You know that the beginning is the most important part of any work, especially in the case of a young and tender thing; for that is the time at which the character is being formed and the desired impression is more readily taken... Shall we just carelessly allow children to hear any casual tales which may be devised by casual persons, and to receive into their minds ideas for the most part the very opposite of those which we should wish them to have when they are grown up? We cannot.... Anything received into the mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable; and therefore it is most important that the tales which the young first hear should be models of virtuous thoughts.... Then will our youth dwell in a land of health, amid fair sights and sounds, and receive the good in everything; and beauty, the effluence of fair works, shall flow into the eye and ear, like a health-giving breeze from a purer region, and insensibly draw the soul from the earliest years into likeness and sympathy with the beauty of reason. There can be no nobler training than that. -Plato's Republic

I remember hearing George Will mention a study of the effects of television on two small towns in the U.S. when it was first introduced there. This was back in the 1950s and they found a remarkable increase in violence and anti-social behavior even then. What to speak of whats on now. No one wants to admit that television influences us. We like to think we are in control. But there is a multi-hundreds of billion dollar industry based on the idea that images & sounds can influence people to buy a product (or an idea). We regulate the pollution of other industries, but because of "free speech" we can't touch the garbage pumped into our culture. From the BBC: Has TV changed Bhutan? Children have been imitating moves from the WWE series After five years of broadcasting, Bhutan's government is considering legislation to regulate what the country's people can watch. What effect has five years of TV had on the country? It is unclear yet exactly what will be restricted by the Information, Communication and Technology Act. But Rinzi Dorji, the head of the Sigma cable company, told BBC World Service's TV Invasion programme that the programmes most likely to be required to be taken off air would include pornography and the staged US wrestling series WWE. He said that this was because of a wave of children performing copycat wrestling moves. "The students are becoming more and more violent when they are at school," he explained. "The elder boys are trying to imitate the wrestling styles on the younger ones, so that is creating a lot of problems in schools." Wrestling and porn In June 1999, the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan allowed television broadcasting to begin for the first time. The introduction of television into Bhutan was sparked by the World Cup Final of France '98. The 3-0 victory of the home side over Brazil was watched by thousands on a big screen in Bhutan's National Square. TV began after thousands gathered to watch the final of France '98 It was such a success that a year later, on the 25th anniversary of his coronation, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk decided to begin the Bhutan Broadcasting Service (BBS). Six months after that, global TV broadcasting was allowed in. Shockshan Peck, who has studied the impact of TV in Bhutan, told TV Invasion that it was this second development that has caused profound change. "Young people are now much more in tune with globalisation and what is happening around the world," she said. "The risk is that the more we learn about the world the more we're losing of our own culture." The Information, Communication and Technology Act is partially in response to this concern. Bhutan's king, who rules in conjunction with the government, had long kept his kingdom free of foreign influence in order to preserve its deep-rooted Buddhist culture. Kinley Dorji, the editor of Bhutan's only regular newspaper, the weekly Kuensel, explained that the thinking in the country is that as it will never be a military or economic power, its strength must be its unique society. He believes that television represents a direct threat to this. "We're trying to look at it in the context of Bhutanese society, Buddhist society, where the rural values, Buddhist values, social values, are very important. "This is Bhutan, which came out of isolation only in the 1960s, and since then tried to follow a policy where it was trying to preserve, conserve, traditional values. "So that's why we call it literally an aerial invasion into Bhutanese society - a society where the cultural identity was its strength." Crime rise He also said that among the first letters the newspaper received about television was from a 13-year-old boy worried about what he was seeing in what was then called WWF, before a legal dispute with the World Wildlife Fund. I would say the most violent channels are CNN and the BBC Dorji Ahm, youth development worker "Bhutanese kids who have grown up in this quiet country, this very rustic society, suddenly saw these big men beating each other up on television," he added. "They couldn't understand it. There were several pained letters from kids saying 'why are they doing this?' They couldn't understand what it was. "Two or three ex-patriots replied to that, saying 'this is not real, it's choreographed - it's not that bad'." The worries over the effect television may be having on Bhutan's youth in particular are not surprising - over half of the country's 800,000 population are under 15 years old. However, Dorji Ahm, a youth development worker in Bhutan, said she was not at all concerned. And she argued that there was "nothing violent" on Bhutan's TV. Some are worried about the effect of TV on Bhutan's youth "I would say the most violent channels are CNN and the BBC," she added. "There, you see a lot of violence, and you know this is not a movie - this is reality." Certainly, a study by a British university into the effect of television on society in St Helena, which turned on the transmitters four years before Bhutan, found no correlation between TV violence and children's behaviour. But others in Bhutan believe that children are imitating what they are seeing - at least indirectly. In particular, they link television to a rise in crime over the period it has been broadcasting. "[Young people] want and need what they see on television - the fashion, the clothes, the whole changing lifestyle, going to bars, drinking," Kinley Dorji said. "A lot of these ideas have come from television. And they want more now." He argued that many of the criminals came from low-income families, and that much of the crime involved the theft of tape recorders, TV sets and clothes. "If you look at the items being stolen, it's directly related to what they're seeing," he added. Irrelevant debate TV analyst Shockshan Peck said that TV may have some influence on how people commit crime. King Jigme Singye Wangchuk believes Bhutan's people will judge what is good and bad TV But she argued that it was equally a key part of Buddhist culture that people decide for themselves what is right and wrong "But the intention - this is a very Buddhist thing - the intention is not driven by television." She quoted the king of Bhutan, who had said on the launch of television that he was confident people would pick the best from media. "Both good and bad are there - it's up to you to decide what is good and what is bad," she stressed. "There's inherently a great confidence in people understanding what is good." Others, though, see the whole debate as largely irrelevant. They point out that the vast majority of Bhutan's population - 70% - do not even have electricity, let alone television.

The idea sprang up in my head a few days ago because I needed to carry a small amount of charnamrita to a dying bird a few blocks away. I thought "Wouldn't it be great if there were some small cups right now?" Bingo. As Theist says, it wouldn't be mandatory, but would be there for those unfamiliar or reticent. I've seen new comers completely perplexed at the charnamrita bowl. And many don't want to get their hands sticky. Heck, I've seen people not want to take gulabjumons because it would make their hands sticky. Anyways, its just an idea.

I tried searching for the paper cups I'm talking about. I found some that were as low as 8 to 13 cents each. But these were real sturdy, almost cardboard like cups. The ones I'm thinking about are very flimsy, paperthin cups. There could be a little pull down dispenser. As you pull one off, it comes off and the next one is available to be taken.

Your 'Prabhupada as goalie' story reminded me of two other stories from the Memories series. They have nothing to do with the thread, but they popped into my head so I felt like sharing them. These aren't really stories, just quick little things. The first was once Prabhupada was explaining that he played Hamlet in college. Then because of the college thought, I remembered another was once he was in Scotland and he said "I'm also Scottish." Because he went to Scottish Churches College in India. Just two little funny asides I thought of typing.

Some of the silliest arguments I've seen have been about how devotees shouldn't play sports. "Prabhupada said you could kick a ball around. But he never said you could play tennis. Tennis is maya." This is dumb. Exercise is actually good for mental peace. You will have a steadier mind if you have a healthy body. Besides, if you eat halava (ghee, sugar), samosas (ghee, salt), chapattis (ghee), gulabjumans (sugar, ghee) etc.... and don't exercise, you won't be around much longer.

I also think the cost would be very minimal. I don't know for sure, but I bet you could buy those cups in large quantities for less than a cent each.

I came up with a simple idea that I think is good. Why not have little paper cups in a dispenser for people to laddle charnamrita into. You know the kind of cups that are in doctor's offices when you need a shot of water to take some pills. First, I think organizationally it works well. Second, I think people coming for the first time to a temple would appreciate it.

Ghari is right. I haven't studied it in detail, but I seem to recall that Quakers believe that everyone has an inner light. Through quiet introspection God can reveal his plan to each individual personally. Sort of like Paramatma. They are against most formalities of Christian religion (no priests, icons, elaborate ceremonies, maybe even churches?). I'll see if I can dig up some more info later.

This week’s Srila Siddhaswarupananda television program addresses the question “Where is shelter to be found?” If one of these children, like this small Tulsi Manjari Dasi, her body is so small and weak compared to someone like Tim with a big body. Can she exist alone? If you were to put her on the street what would happen? On the streets of Waikiki. No imagine there are no police in Waikiki and there are wild dogs and rats. So it is like a jungle. Each of us thinks we have it together. I have education, beauty, strength, money. I think I have many places of refuge in the jungle. This material world is like a jungle and practically speaking we are powerless. There are those people into positive thinking who believe they can control their environment. But actually perfect spiritual existence starts with understanding that we are like small children. We are powerless against death, disease, old age, demonic people. We are overcome by so many powerful forces. Now if this child is alone she cannot protect herself. It is not possible even with positive thinking. This analogy is not perfect but the point is that just like small children we must find protection. You must realize how small you are in the face of the illusory energy. To be protected you must take shelter of someone who can offer real protection. This little girl would be crying in the Alamaona shopping center. There is candy, clothing, food. But she will not be alright until she finds her mother or father. So we must learn to cry for our real father. We are overcome by lust, ignorance, greed, anger, and enviousness. Everyone is always in anxiety. Sometimes the burning is very hot sometimes not so hot. But the burning is always there. You can’t avoid it by taking shelter in material goods. Not through entertainment, food, or gossip. This just covers the anxiety. They will go into a sort of daze staring in the fridge or the television like zombies. They just want to sit and forget. It is like, we’ve given the example before, of the ant in the toilet bowl. He can’t get up the side. He just goes round and round. He can’t get out except with the help of someone. This is our situation. We are like the ant in the toilet and we know at any moment it will go ‘flush’. But there is protection. In fact we are the children of God. He can very easily pick us up. If we want to take shelter and surrender to Him then He will immediately accept. Spiritual life means surrendering to God. My heart is burning so I am crying for You. Please give me shelter. I have no one else to turn to. The great Acharyas tell us to love the Supreme Person. Do His will. Take shelter of Him. Jesus taught this. Caitanya Mahaprabhu taught this. All the Acharyas teach this. Don’t try to live separately from God. Spiritual life is not about going to the temple. Real religion is the personal experience of surrendering to God. Its not Hinduism, Mohammedism, not Christianity, not Buddhism. Its not something you can join or quit. When you take shelter than you are religious. Nothing else matters. Religion means surrender to God. You realize how small you are. Then you take surrender. Only someone who goes through the personal experience of full surrender is religious. A person must know how to take shelter of God. Instead of trying to temporarily forget our suffering it is better to chant God’s names. Don’t take shelter of the mall, food, or gossip. Simply chant God’s names. In the privacy of your room and heart you must do this. We are taught to come together and chant congregationally. But it is also an individual activity. So if you aren’t experiencing surrender to Krishna then you cannot know Him. As long as you think you are happy and you’ll just chant a little ‘Hare Krsna’ this is not advancement. I can’t go any further without surrendering to God. I have to pray and surrender. This is the beginning of spiritual life.

Discussions of varnashrama development I think often miss a fundamental problem and I think the first big stumbling block to the creation of an actual cohesive social system. The problem is size. We do not have population density to create a cohesive social structure. 100 devotees here, 200 there, is not enough. To make it simple, visualize if you will what would happen if you did in fact gather 10,000 devotees from around the world in one town. All of a sudden all sorts of possibilities fall into place, from the minor to the major. For priests, it makes it easier to gather donations for the maintenance of temples. We could select only the most qualified individuals because we would reduce redundancy. We tend to think of our temples as having a few hundred people. But there are plenty of well functioning churches in the U.S. that have several thousand congregation members easily. I have a friend who's church is huge (like 30,000). They simply rotate services. All of a sudden you could have a few temples, managed by a few head priests (the most qualified). Large congregations would put a lot less stress on having to raise funds through book distribution. In addition, with a large congregation you could finance a very beautiful temple(s) with no mortgage. For businesses, the opportunities are huge as well. By creating a small town just of devotees, the funds generated from the congregation would stay in the hands of the congregation. When I go to the store, I may spend several hundred dollars per month, that goes to non-devotees. But in a community of 10,000 a devotee could set up a legitimate grocery store. They could set up laundromats, clothing stores, restaurants etc.... In economics there is a principle called the multiplier effect. Basically you could have a few devotees earn money, and as they spend it, it ripples through the economy, creating other jobs. These other jobs could be businesses owned by devotees within the community. Then our funds would continually circulate among devotees (not entirely, some would 'bleed out', but more of our wealth would be retained within our community). For administrators, there really isn't a whole lot of defending they could do. But again, there is even less in a community of 100. Atleast if you could establish a large community, you could create a small volunteer fire departments or such. Everything from cow protection to economic development, to schooling. Even if the schools are public schools, the government is required to provide them to you. If you have two or three thousand Vaisnava kids going to a public school, you have effectively created a Vaisnava school, with the tax payers (devotees among them) paying the bill. Philosophy could be done outside of school in a sort of seminary type set up. It really isn't any temple's fault that there hasn't been a full scale varnashram system set up. As far as I'm concerned the main stumbling block initially is one of population density. You can want it to happen all we want, but unless there are lots and lots and lots of devotees owning large sections of an area, it just won't happen.

I forgot one very important figure from one of those articles. Turkey - 2.48 Turkey, a European Muslim country, the most Western/European of Islamic countries, has 2.5 children per woman. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Pakistan, India, or Bangladesh was above 3. Another issue to consider is the European Union. It is breaking down economic and migration barriers. I believe I understand this correct - that within the EU people of member countries may freely move to any other member country. Just like there is no barrier to migration between one state in the U.S. and the next. So if there are 4 million Muslims in England, it is very possible there will be large migrations of Muslims out of parts of Europe and into England. Or Belgium. Why not take over one small country. A Belgium or Ireland. And they would have every legal right once they take over an area to eliminate old cultural setups. On a simple level they could change every city street name to what they want. Or they could change laws to comply with Sharia Islamic law. They could ban alcohol (against Islam) or require halal laws for meat. Its a Democracy so they could do what they want.

Here are some other articles: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546441.shtml http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/734123.stm http://ippfnet.ippf.org/pub/IPPF_News/News_Details.asp?ID=1070 http://www.cphpost.dk/get/55971.html "Even if there is a small improvement in the birth rate, by 2050 we are likely to see populations cut by a third," Mr Macura said. [For Eastern Europe] Just a quick summary of those articles. The birth rates come from each of these articles, so might not be exactly on the same scale (different dates, different calculations). Still this should gives you an idea of what Europe is looking at. Remember 2.1 is the magic figure you must hit just to have population parity. 2.1 Births/Woman =Population Parity Former East Germany – 0.83 Former Eastern Europe – 1.3 Western Europe – 1.6 Latvia – 1.09 Bulgaria – 1.11 Russia – 1.17 England/Wales – 1.66 Spain – 1.15 Italy – 1.19 Germany – 1.34 Denmark – 1.75 Its over. By the time Europe wakes up, it will be too late. I remembered reading of a big city in Belgium I believe where the Muslim population was already 25%. I believe right now England has like 4 or 5 million Muslims mostly from Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. There is one cleric in England that preaches in the streets to young British Muslims to overthrow the government through Jihad. And since Western Civilization protects "free speech" there is nothing the government can do. If its 4 million today where will it be in 50 years? Probably 10-15 million. Coupled with English declining birth rates, you'll probably end up seeing 30% of England as Muslim, if not more. Because once they control enough votes, they can legally say "We're opening the floodgates to Muslims throughout the world". Then its over. The left and right will be fighting each other and the legal red tape will tie their hands. Within 100 years its democracy won't even matter.

Its already happening. Birth rates in Europe are so low that they don't even have population parity. Forecasting the trend is not difficult science with mortality tables and birthing tables. The projections over the next 50 years are frightening with their implications. Because they don't have enough young people, Europe has to import workers from poorer areas (often Islamic countries). But in Islam birthcontrol doesn't appear to be an issue. So they tend to have much higher birthrates. Eventually Europe will become Islamic. Already I have read that France has more Muslims than baptised Catholics. In Europe the Catholic church is effectively dead. And they know this. They have shifted their emphasis to the developing world. Partly because that area hasn't been Christianized yet. But also because they know they don't hold any sway in their own backyard. We've become too fat and happy. It really is a sign of materialism. If the purpose of life is to be happy (from a materialist perspective), then it is best not to have many children. Because children are a pain. We all know it. They consume resources that could be used to buy a second Mercedes, or a cruise to the Bahamas. They consume, consume and consume, until they are 18. And even then they keep taking. So if this life is all there is (thats what our modern educational system tells us), then don't have kids, or have very few, and enjoy as much as you can. In America we are having a similar problem, though not quite as extreme as Europe. There tends to be a relationship I believe between socialism and religiousity (inverse), and religiousity and birth rate (direct). In the U.S. we are making up the difference with legal & illegal immigration. But most of that is coming from Mexico and Central & South America. As such our population will increasingly be more and more Catholic while Europe's will become more and more Muslim. Should make for an interesting future.