The end of something big
Friday September 22, 2006
In Genoa, the city is dying for want of children. The only people having kids there these days are immigrants. Young people have resolutely chosen to have either no children, or only one child. Some claim that it's too expensive...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Just a reminder that our ancestors may have endured many deprivations and still had families because they had no means of birth control. I wonder if my grandmother would have had 9 children if the pill had been available??>
Right out of PD James' novel The Children of Men: abandoned playgrounds, no toy stores, dog and cat pseudochildren. Has the upcoming movie based on the novel been mentioned here before?>
Psuedochildren--good word.
I am seeing that more and more. We have a woman here at work who thinks her dog is her child and seriously puts it on the same level as a baby.
It's a deep, deep sickness that has infested our culture.
Meanwhile, babies are being aborted by the dumpsterfull every day.>
When I was living in Rome last summer (2005), I counted about five couples walking dogs for every couple pushing a baby in a stroller.
Just a reminder that our ancestors may have endured many deprivations and still had families because they had no means of birth control. I wonder if my grandmother would have had 9 children if the pill had been available??
The days before the pill were also, to a great extent (except perhaps for the last few decades before the pill), the days of high infant mortality. They were also, to a great extent (again, except perhaps for the last few decades), the days when an extra child was not regarded only as an extra mouth to feed, but also as an extra pair of hands to help support the family; and when having children was the only real old-age insurance policy available to most people. My guess is that your grandmother might not have chosen to have as many as nine, but she probably would have chosen to have more than one or two.>
A childless married friend suggested seriously to me this week that companies should offer health insurance for pets as a benefit, because it's not fair for people with children to get these benefits but not people who choose to have dogs and cats.>
What public policy would you adopt to change this?>
And you, Rod, as always have absolutely no trust or confidence in (and a parochial, tiny vantage upon) the history of humankind, i.e., that it's unfolding in a way unknowable by you that may be leading to better manifestations of the Good. Fear and mistrust, Rod: you only have two blog entries, "This doesn't scare me" and "This scares me." Not very enlightening.>
Karen asked: "What public policy would you adopt to change this?"
That's not how conservatives think about these issues. They don't say "Hey, what kind of law can we enact to make this happen."
We are asking people to look how they live their lives and see if they are accepting children as gifts from God or planning them like a wedding reception.
It's about control and trying to interfere with God's plan (for example by abortion or birth control). Chaos and disorder basically rule when you mess with the Big Man's Plan.>
Well, jb, would you put women in jail for seeking abortions or birth control?>
Some claim that it's too expensive to raise kids, but that's a crock, given what generations of their (our) ancestors endured in terms of material privation, yet still had families.
Wealth is relative. The problem is not that the youth are too poor to have kids. Rather, it is the youth have been shafted by their elders and see no need to continue a failed culture. Note the division of wealth between the old and young - this is the first generation in the West where the old are richer than the young. Investing in the future? The kids learned it from their parents.
There is a price for this greed. It's every man (well, woman in this case :-) ) for themselves, and the elderly will now grow old without grandchildren. It is fitting punishment, indeed, to die seeing the end of your linage.
One can see the hand of God here - or the ghost of Darwin (it matters not for the results). Yet it's simply beautiful to behold "scattering the proud in the foolishness of their hearts" while "raising the lowly". It's like watching a lovely sunset and sunrise at the same time!>
Well, jb, would you put women in jail for seeking abortions or birth control?
-Karen
jb just pointed out that this is not how cnservatives think about issues. IMO, this is one of the reasons liberals and conservatives have such a hard time talking - liberals just can't concieve seeking change with out imposing the force of law and government to get their way.>
Rod: Great, if sad, post. You killed me with the mention of benefits for pets. How...far...down...can...we...go? Mark Van Doren had a wonderful poem entitled "Estote Ergo Vos Perfecti" ("Be Ye Therefore Perfect"), written in honor of his student, John Senior. It contained the following line:
"Where things continue falling, forever and a day, except that all is darkness down there, o soul of me."
We're plummeting past Pete Singer and falling........to where?>
Wealth is relative. The problem is not that the youth are too poor to have kids. Rather, it is the youth have been shafted by their elders and see no need to continue a failed culture. Note the division of wealth between the old and young - this is the first generation in the West where the old are richer than the young.
Indeed. And while the relative wealth of the younger generation has decreased, the expectations (and associated costs) of raising children have increased. College, for example, was once the domain of a privlidged minority. Now, for better or worse, it's pretty much expected for anyone who doesn't want their kids to spend their lives at manual labor. And it's not getting any cheaper.
The economic patterns that have concentrated wealth to the older generations show no signs of changing. The pattern of ecological depletion that generated this massive growth in wealth is likewise continuing, with an associated loss of economic opportunity. It may harder for young adults today, but the ones I really pity are the very young, who will grow up to inherit a world depleted of natural wealth and economic opportunity.
That's a large part of the reason for my personal choice to remain childless, to invest my efforts in trying to change these patterns rather than in raising children. If I (and the many others like me) are successful, then there will be the potential for a prosperous future for the species. That my own genes do not get to directly participate in this future matters not very much. If, on the other hand, we fail, then I'm just as happy that no child of mine will have to live with the fruits of our species' collective stupidity.>
Oops. Didn't mean to avoid the usual "reductionist" charges..the above post was mine. :-)>
Ossicle:
I thought the post was about population decline and the failure of young italians to reproduce.
I didn't know it was about Rods cosmogonic understanding of history.
Is everyone with whom you have a problem "reality challenged" or frightened?>
jb just pointed out that this is not how cnservatives think about issues.
I used to be politically (if not socially) conservative, back when I believed this to be true. Let's see:
prohibit gay marriage CHECK
prohibit abortion CHECK
prohibit FLAG BURNING(!) CHECK
No, I'm afraid that the conservatives are just as legislatively crazed as the standard-issue liberals. They may have adopted the freedom-and-liberty rhetoric of the libertarians, but they haven't embraced the substance.>
I just came back to this thread after having been gone for lunch, and it appears that the trollish Ossicle appeared with another of his ad hominem tirades ... but the good hosts at Beliefnet zapped it. Thanks Bnet!
Karen, I do think that there are some legislative incentives that can be done to increase the birth rate. I'm skeptical that they'll succeed -- nobody decides to have a child based strictly on a cost-benefit analysis -- but they might at least be tried. Serious tax breaks for families based on the number of children should be considered. Don't you think?>
Well, considering some of the comments in this thread, I guess there ARE worse things than being overrun by the jihadists.
Or, perhaps more precisely, there are wildly different but equally horrific manifestations of the Culture of Death. One way or another, this society (such as it is) will get what it so desperately craves.>
Back in the old days, children were economically helpful---another son on the farm meant more help with the labor. But now that everything is industrialized, children are worth money. And, since nothing matters outside your bank account...
God bless.>
Or, perhaps more precisely, there are wildly different but equally horrific manifestations of the Culture of Death.
The "culture of death" is the culture that mortgages it's future to enrich itself in the present. Economically, ecologically and socially, that's what we have been doing for at least the last half of the 20th Century.
The choice to not have children is not the culture of death. It is merely a sad but rational response to the circumstances created by the real culture of death.>
I'm skeptical that they'll succeed -- nobody decides to have a child based strictly on a cost-benefit analysis -- but they might at least be tried.
Actually the French birthrate has ticked upward a bit recently thanks in part to pro-natalist policies. But the French have had low birthrates since the Revolution, so it will take a very long time before any upswing makes a real difference.
.>
I'm not so sure that low birthrates are primarily the result of cultural factors -- narcissism, secularism, despair at ecological catastrophe, etc. Having travelled with very small children in Italy, I can attest that Italians REALLY love kids and are almost envious of who have them.
An Italian acquaintance pointed out to me recently that he is almost alone among his peers (mid-20s, 2-3 years past university) in having a permanent, career job. European labor laws give most private sector employees approximately the level of job security that only Federal government workers enjoy in the US. The direct, unfortunate consequence of these policies is widespread, chronic employment among the young. If you know you'll never be able to let an employee go, you're going to very cautious about hiring.
Young Europeans are often unable to start their careers in earnest until they are in their 30s. They commonly delay marriage, and certainly child-bearing, as a result -- often living with their parents for many years. Since women as well as men are trying to get their careers started while on the north side of age 30, there's a powerful structural disincentive to have children.
.>
Simon, although Italy is among the worst for low birth-rates, the problem is similar in the more prosperous countries of Europe.
Also, even for the reasons of high unemployment and low economic prospects, why are immigrant populations in Italy able to prosper and have families? Among other nationalities, there is a large population of Filipino guest workers living and having families in Italy doing the jobs that ordinary Italians think themselves above doing (although their parents and grandparents did not have a problem doing them in the past).>
I like the tax breaks idea, including tax breaks to businesses that offer parental leave.
I also think, however, that low fertility rates are a great deal more complicated than most analysis makes it appear. For one thing, high fertility appears to go hand in hand with desperate poverty, at least if you take the Nationmaster list of the highest fertility in the world. The top five are, in descending order: Niger, Mali, Somalia, Uganda, and Afghanistan, all pretty much in the quality-of-life toilet. The bottom six are more interesting, again in descending order: Czech Republic, Lithuania, Ukraine, Singapore, Macau, and Hong Kong. Three from the defunct Warsaw Pact, three Asian islands. (I'm not entirely convinced that Hong Kong and Macau count as separate countries anymore, but I'll go along with Nationmaster's statisticians. None of the bottom six have much of a history of Enlightenment individualism. I'm not sure about the Ukraine, but the other five have only one thing in common: high population density. Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore have about a tenth of a square kilometer for each 1,000 people. The Czech Republic has 7, and the Ukraine 12. (I couldn't find Lithuania.)By comparison, there are 31 square klicks for 1,000 people in the US. The top five in fertility have more than 100 square kilometers per 1,000 people.
I don't think this is entirely a matter of dirt, because France, as mentioned above, has seen an uptick in its birthrate recently, and not only within immigrant communities, and the French have 8 square klicks for each 1,000 people. But it does seem that humans have fewer kids when we're crowded.
I do, by the way, think this is a problem, just not maybe one of indulgence as much as one of practical calculations.>
There's also just the tiniest chance that, where birth rates are concerned, people are doing what they're doing of their own free choice. Or at least 90% of it. Perhaps this kind of thing is just what happens when a society gets to a certain level of population and prosperity. Hey: maybe that's even God's will and plan! Can any of you prove that it's not? I'm a little amazed by the certainty some of you have that 1) population increase is always and everywhere a good thing, and 2) God is on your side in this debate. How can you be so sure?>
Mr Dreher
my wife and I have 7 children and we are about the same age as you ----
how many do you have ?? one or two?
always interesting how many people make comments about the low birth rates but still do things like use birth control>
Tim- Get a grip. Not only are you wrong in your aspersions, but to assume that families with 1 or 2 kids are using birth control ignores the many who struggle with infertility.>
Karen:
also think, however, that low fertility rates are a great deal more complicated than most analysis makes it appear. For one thing, high fertility appears to go hand in hand with desperate poverty
Deomographers have been trying to figure out the cause-effect, and the following reasons keep coming up:
1) Materialism
2) Loss of religious faith
3) Feminism and/or women's education
It's NOT
1) birth control pill, as populations were declining long before 1960.
2) wealth only, as there are many well off folk who breed fine (Mormons, Amish).
Another fact we know: there has never been a culture that is:
1) feminist or
2) agnostic/atheist
That have shown they can breed at replacement rate.>
Well, that certainly settles the question!>
Michael Blowhard:
Perhaps this kind of thing is just what happens when a society gets to a certain level of population and prosperity.
If so, then those societies will go extinct as other cultures that do breed fill the gap. Natural selection demands it. For example, in this country we have many subgroups breeding like crazy. If we project forward, they will have the votes to control the culture. So it matters.
Hey: maybe that's even God's will and plan! Can any of you prove that it's not?
I agree with you. The bible is full warnings of the dangers of wealth :-) .
I'm a little amazed by the certainty some of you have that 1) population increase is always and everywhere a good thing
Not good or bad. Simply a function of being an animal. Every species on the planet attempts to fill its environment. Right now, the world is growing. It's only a matter of who is going to do that breeding.>
M.Blowhard has a good point. Why do religious conservatives assume that it is God's plan to fill the planet, shoulder-to-shoulder, with people.
"Be fruitful and multiply" was a reasonable instruction when the planetary population was measured in the hundreds of thousands, or even the millions. But with 6+ BILLION people on the planet, why assume that the same dictum still holds? Is it God's will that we breed ourselves into a state of ecological collapse and/or planetary poverty? Whether or not you think we are currently at, or past, the planet's carrying capacity, the fact remains that the planet represents a finite resource. And we know what happens to a population that exceeds the ability of their ecosystem to support them: they starve.>
M_David, How do you explain the fact that Iran has a lower fertility rate than the US? Iran is hardly a feminist paradise and is extremely religious. Also, feminism hasn't been noticeably influential in Singapore, Macau, or Hong Kong, yet they have the world's lowest birth rates. In fact, women in Spain and Italy are less likely to be employed than women in the US, yet both countries have fertility rates lower than 1.5.>
Tim Patterson:
Don't go there, Tim. We have never used birth control. We use NFP, and have had very solid and substantive reasons for not having more children (NB, our third child is due in a month). You really need to be careful before you start casting aspersions on individuals for their motives, of which you know nothing.>
It's hard to stand back and analyze the population phenomenon with cold rationality, because just about everybody has a lot of personal emotion tied up into it. Because I'm a natalist who's married with children, it's hard to make the case for natalism without being accused of special pleading. Of course I immediately suspect the childless who argue for the opposite point of special pleading. So this stuff goes both ways.
Phillip Longman, author of "The Empty Cradle," is in my view a pretty reliable writer on this topic, because the conclusions he arrives at run counter to his own preferences. In his book and other journalism, he points out that falling population worldwide is going to cause big, big problems for everyone. And that those subgroups who place special value on children -- in our culture, that usually means immigrants and religious conservatives -- are going to be left to inherit what's left. He exhorts fellow progressives to be fruitful and multiply, because he does not like to think of a more socially and religiously conservative future for us all. But that's what's coming. Like it or not.>
Well, assuming their kids grow up to be conservative ... That we haven't hit Peak Oil ... That we don't stumble into unforeseen eco-traps ... Etc.
I don't know quite why the topic creates such emotional havoc, do you? I wish humanity well, I assume almost everyone else does too. But, in a policy (even in a non-political, informal-policy) sense, where population goes what does that imply, let alone necessitate? Beats me, really. Maybe humanity would be best off increasing population on earth to 100 billion. I doubt it, and it would certainly be a more crowded planet than I'd like. But maybe. On the other hand, maybe we've already passed what's sustainable. I'm with Brent in thinking that advice that served well when the world's population was 100 mill might not do us any favors now that we're up to however many billion we're at. But there's no real way of knowing, is there? Which is why I marvel at the apparently God-given certainty with which many people in these debates argue their points.
It's also a reason why I'd love see the "what do we want?" question raised more often. I think it's a legit and important one. Do you want to live in an America, for instance, whose population is 1 billion? I mean, it's OK if you do. But it's presumably OK too if I say that 250 mill is already too much for me. A lot of it boils down to taste, really, no? And maybe that's not just OK but inevitable. Taste gets to be very important once life's basics (food, shelter, etc) have been taken care of.>
Actually I should modestly ask for clarification. I sometimes suspect that part of what I puzzle over in these discussions has to do with Catholicism. "Go breed" and all that. I'm puzzled by the "multiply, multiply" injunction in the Crunchy context because, having spent many decades hanging around Crunchy circles, I've almost never run into Crunchy people saying "multiply, multiply."
Maybe it makes sense for Crunchy people to say "multiply multiply." But, given that it's so rare, it's still confusing. Which is why I find myself scratching my head and thinking, "Is it the Catholicism?" Perhaps unfair, and I know little about Catholicism anyway. But does it help explain what puzzles me so?>
M_David, How do you explain the fact that Iran has a lower fertility rate than the US?...Also, feminism hasn't been noticeably influential in Singapore, Macau, or Hong Kong, yet they have the world's lowest birth rates. In fact, women in Spain and Italy are less likely to be employed than women in the US, yet both countries have fertility rates lower than 1.5.
Karen, you are making all sorts of logical errors here.
An analogy may help: a person must have legs to run a marathon, but just because he has legs doesn't mean he can.
In the same way, just because you must have a non-feminist culture to breed does not mean that all non-feminist cultures can breed.
Also, one of the dangers of looking at the TFR of the U.S. is that you have subgroups of different cultures breeding at very different rates. For example, we have East Coast Libs (TFR 1.2?) mixed in with Amish (TFR 7) mixed with fresh Hispanics (TFR 3). I'm not saying we can't use the data, just we have to be careful.
Look, demographers have been pouring over this data for many decades. The relation of breeding to feminism, religion, and wealth are not my invention, but are accepted demographic correlations. Trust me, you won't disprove them before dinner. Yes, we don't know why or the cause-effect, but we know the correlations.>
BrentEubanks
Is it God's will that we breed ourselves into a state of ecological collapse and/or planetary poverty?
I can't say, but I think it's the wrong question. It is Darwin's law that we will breed until we fill our environment. Poverty is a relative judgement that survival does not recognize.
And God, for whatever reason, loves scienific laws so much He only violates them when performing miracles. My point: we can take the law of natural selection to the bank. So it must be God's will.>
But both filling the environment (and who knows at what level we've achieved that?) and stressing it (and who knows how much stress it's under and can take?) lead to collapse. That's a law too. So perhaps collapse is part of God's plan for us too?>
Michael Blowhard writes:
I'm puzzled by the "multiply, multiply" injunction in the Crunchy context because, having spent many decades hanging around Crunchy circles, I've almost never run into Crunchy people saying "multiply, multiply."
As I understand it, Rod's Crunchy Conservative means:
The Con = social conservative
The Crunch = political liberal
Most likely you hung with social Libs. Social Cons are big on family and children and are really Traditionalists. But a ton are enviromentalists, into good food, beer, culture and the like. Hence the Crunch. Back to nature - including the breeding :-).>
So perhaps collapse is part of God's plan for us too?
Outside of my data. We need a Prophet!
Wait, we do know the sun will be finished in about 5 billion years. So yes, it must be part of the plan eventually. Unless we can get off the planet. But then comes the universe...>
So great, your descendants get to inherit this fearful terrorized and terrifying planet, full of plots and counterplots, danger, evil and threats from every group, subgroup, species, human, alien, foreign and domestic.
And you wonder why some are reluctant to bring more children into the world.>
"Is it God's will that we breed ourselves into a state of ecological collapse and/or planetary poverty?"
Well, we've got a bigger population than ever and people just keep getting richer. After two hundred years of being left out of the industrial revolution, much of the non-western world is coming in and eating and living better. Much of the angst among the nativists here reflects the side effects of that phenomenon.
For a good discussion of just what this development is about and how it effects the world economy I'd recommend that you read this month's Economist.>
Tovart, this just in: the world has always been a dangerous and deadly neighborhood. Somehow our ancestors had enough faith in the future to provide little hostages to the future.>
2.8 billion people currently live on less than $2 a day. Do you really think that increasing the planet's population is going to *reduce* the number of people living in this kind of extreme poverty?
BTW, I fail to see how "taking in" a million or two of them a year is going to make much of a dent in this figure.>
So great, your descendants get to inherit this fearful terrorized and terrifying planet, full of plots and counterplots, danger, evil and threats from every group, subgroup, species, human, alien, foreign and domestic.
tovart, this is good stuff. I think I'll start my will off this way.
And you wonder why some are reluctant to bring more children into the world.
No need to wonder...the weaker members of the species always expire without breeding.>
Don't be an ass. Your supposed "weaker members of the species" includes Leonardo da Vinci, Plato, numerous popes, the Dalai Lama, Susan B. Anthony, Beethoven, Christopher Isherwood, Louisa May Alcott, Louis Armstrong, Jane Austen, Mother Teresa, William Blake, Katharine Hepburn, Dorothy Parker, Ayn Rand, and Dr. Seuss ... all of them childless.>
MIchael Blowhard:
I think you need to take a deep breath, reach down, and try to find a sense of humor. Gentle mocking leaves no scars. It was a JOKE. I'll put a smiley on next time for all the humor-challenged out there.
But regarding your list of names, you should follow enough Darwinian theory to understand inclusive fitness, by which a member of a culture will show altruism for the benefit of the whole. Not every man must breed, but his culture must. The Popes are ok.
Please. Have a beer. Listen to music. Smile. Make love - oops. I didn't mean that last one. It can have deadly consequences...>
m_david: the AMISH are among the rich???>
This article made me sad. I love Italians. One of my very best friends is Italian. Well, she's American of Italian descent. When I think of Italians, I think of tradition, family, children, God, and pasta. It's hard to believe that the young are choosing not to have children.>
M_David -- I grimace not because you've struck a nerve but because you carry on like a like a self-satisfied jerk. What's funny is that you picture your goading behavior as "gentle mocking." And why on earth would you assume I'm not familiar with Darwin?>
connie:
m_david: the AMISH are among the rich???
I didn't say they were rich, just well-off. And by world standards, they are. They certainly are not in poverty.
I read a Forbes article some years back that made estimates of the Amish net worth. You would be surprised. Their land is worth a fortune, and they cannot spend money on luxuries, so all surplus just gets saved or invested in more land or businesses.
And remember, unlike most, they truly invest in the future by having children - average TFR of 7. That's an average . If they and other primatives like the Mennonites keep this up, they will dominate their local areas by 2100, and this will effectivly eliminate any possibility of social liberalism. And they make typical social conservatives like Rod look like flaming liberals - they would probably roll back the women vote. I'm waiting for liberals to wake up and start lacing their fields with birth control.
They have already pretty much run out of available land through relentless growth, but they just start small businesses yet still keep up the breeding even though they don't need the labor. It's impressive.>
Michael Blowhard:
You've already called me an ass and a jerk in just two posts. Please calm down; this ain't the Daily Kos. You are frightening the children.>
M_David -- Fair enough. So long, anyway, as you realize that you've been calling others "humor-challenged," going-extinct, ignorant of Darwin, and opposed to God's will.>
"M.Blowhard has a good point. Why do religious conservatives assume that it is God's plan to fill the planet, shoulder-to-shoulder, with people."
Curiously, the automatic pro-natalism in some Christian circles neglects the importance of the celibate or vowed religious in Christian life. At one point in the rise of industrialism, monks and nuns were considered economic parasites who selfishly refused productive work or the begetting of more workers and soldiers.
Why don't people so concerned about population control encourage chaste priests, monks, and nuns? Can't they put aside the "dogs in heat" theory of human sexuality?
"2.8 billion people currently live on less than $2 a day."
Didn't the number used to be 3 billion living on less that $1/day? That seems like a sign of improvement, however small it seems to us.>
Let it be known that all religious conservatives are not all about having a brood of young-uns. I'm not. I decided that motherhood was not in my future inasmuch as I have a nasty temper and don't think I'm good mother material. My husband and I are both very happy with the decision. In the alternative, we don't hate children either. We get to be an "aunt and uncle" to our friends' children and love them dearly, but that's all the exposure we need to little ones. I don't necessarily buy the argument that without children you have no one to take care of you in your old age. If that were true, the nursing and retirement homes wouldn't be full of lonely elderly people. Sometimes you get stuck in there whether you have children or not.>
T.G. Scott writes:
I don't necessarily buy the argument that without children you have no one to take care of you in your old age. If that were true, the nursing and retirement homes wouldn't be full of lonely elderly people. Sometimes you get stuck in there whether you have children or not.
I see very few parents of large families dumped in nursing homes. If they are, the most likely have earned it.
I think our nursing homes are generally filled with parents who had a just a few kids, and raised their daughters for a job in the world, not for childrearing and caregiving. Large families with traditional daughters tend to fight over who gets to keep Grandma.
Case in point: cultures like the Amish don't have nursing homes.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.