Even worse, ongoing research and statistics now show that the connections go way beyond social problems. Also interconnected are such areas as your attitude on family size, church attendance, soft drugs, marriage, abortion, euthanasia and even how you vote. This is starting to become a new science since people who understand how this works may know more about you than you know about yourself. It has reached such a degree of accuracy that the experts can ask you as few as four questions and from that determine your position on major issues fairly reliably.

Numerous groups including federal and state agencies, media, research teams, universities and other organizations have kept statistics and reports on social problems since they began to increase more than five decades ago. In more recent years, most of this information was gathered and analyzed with the use of computers. Some of this research provided statistics and information on how various social problems and other activities are linked. However, this research also showed us that there are only two choices when dealing with right and wrong.

When faced with a decision or an action that could affect other people, we have two and only two choices. We can make our decision based on what the person doing the action wants, or we can make our decision based on the impact of the action or decision on other people and society. Both sides have several names. Basing your decision of right and wrong on the person doing the action can be called left, liberal, selfish, permissive, or pro-choice. Basing your decision of right and wrong on the impact on others and society can be called right, conservative, unselfish, Christian or pro-society.

What the research and statistics show is that many social problems are caused or aggravated by liberal and pro-choice decisions. On the other hand, conservative and pro-society decisions often help both the individual and society.

Some people are fascinated with the thought that modern research and computer statistics have shown us that being unselfish will reduce or eliminate many of our social problems and move us towards a better society. Actually, it takes very little research to discover that this idea has never been a secret and is just about as old as recorded history.

Confucius is credited with saying Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. When he founded Christianity, Jesus Christ admonished his followers to Love your neighbor. More recently, President John F. Kennedy in his inaugural speech said:  . . . and so my fellow Americans; ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.

This is saying the same thing in different words. Moreover, one of the definitions of society is a group of people working together for common goals. If we are pro-choice and selfish, then we are not working together and not working towards common goals. As a result, society suffers.

Logic dictates that it is impossible for society to follow the wishes of a large number of individuals. This would pull society in many different directions at the same time, which is exactly what causes problems. However, it is perfectly logical that individuals can work together for a single goal: what is best for others and society.

World peace, eliminating social problems, and moving towards a heaven on earth all depend on people working together with the same criterion for right and wrong. It does not make any difference whether people have different religions, different nationalities, or different languages. What makes a difference is their criterion for right and wrong.

It might be worthwhile to pause for a second and ask ourselves where we stand on this question. Do you think it is right to be permissive and pro-choice? Or, do you think that being unselfish and pro-society is right? We might also ask whether people have a right to harm others or do they have a responsibility not to harm others?

Some people complain that they have to look out for themselves because no one else will. Interestingly, the statistics are very clear in this area. People who are unselfish, work with others and put others first tend to be healthier, happier, live longer, are less likely to live in poverty or be homeless, and in most cases are less likely to commit crimes or be the victim of crimes. The obvious conclusion is that when we work together for common goals, we all come out ahead. However, when we become pro-choice and selfish, we suffer. Is this what Confucius, Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy were trying to teach us? 

Many people are willing to acknowledge the Golden Rule and the need for working together. However, they are unwilling to apply this criterion universally. Confucius, Jesus Christ and President John F. Kennedy did not provide exceptions to their admonishments, so people ask why this criterion should be so inflexible. The reason is desensitization.

The best way to explain this is to go back several years to the argument over whether kids should be allowed to watch violence on television. Most parents were opposed to allowing kids to watch violence on television but could not come up with a reason. Liberals said that kids should be allowed to be pro-choice in their viewing options and had a right to watch whatever they wanted. The experts sided with the parents. They noted that as kids watched more and more violence on television, they became desensitized to violence and began to accept it as normal behavior. In effect, desensitization is a technical term for what used to be called giving bad example.

Desensitization is at work in our society making both kids and adults more permissive and pro-choice. When people are told that it is acceptable to be pro-choice or permissive, or when they see others being pro-choice and permissive, then they become more pro-choice and permissive themselves. Different people are affected to a greater or lesser degree depending on several factors including how they were brought up and whether they have strong morals or religious beliefs. However, statistics show that people who are more liberal and pro-choice in one area are more likely to be liberal and pro-choice in other areas.

This is not rocket science and has actually been known for decades. For example, students who are pro-choice about attending school are statistically more likely to be pro-choice about smoking, using drugs, pre-marital sex and breaking the law. The same situation is obvious with adults. There are many areas including church attendance, marriage, abortion, and drug usage, where an individual who is pro-choice on one is statistically more likely to be pro-choice on the others.

In effect, selfishness and the pro-choice attitude spreads through society like germs, pollution and cigarette smoke. What this means to us is that everything is tied together. We do not have several social problems. Instead, we have one social problem variously known as liberalism, permissiveness, selfishness and the pro-choice attitude. Our social problems are the effects, not the cause; they are simply manifestations of this liberal, permissive, selfish and pro-choice attitude in different areas.

What has become obvious is that this liberalism, permissiveness and pro-choice attitude has become pervasive and has spread through all parts of our society. While obvious in decisions impacting social problems, it has also affected other attitudes and decisions. This is why Confucius, Jesus Christ and John F. Kennedy offered no exceptions to their rules and admonishments. 

Do not underestimate the impact of desensitization on our society. Some people have become so desensitized to liberalism, permissiveness and selfishness that they are not even aware of it. While many people acknowledge the golden rule and the need for being unselfish, they change their criterion from choice to choice similar to what was once called "cafeteria morals." When they want a "yes, you can" answer, they base their decision on the wants of the person making the decision or committing the action. When they want a "no, you cannot" answer, they base their decision on the negative impact of the decision or action on other people and society. This not only involves contradictions but also spreads selfishness and the pro-choice attitude.

The best way to explain this is to think about our society in relation to a line that stretches from the far left to the far right. Where an individual stands on this line depends on the degree of their liberalism, permissiveness or selfishness. The people on the far left think nothing of murder, are open to committing terrible crimes, and will sell drugs to kids. The people on the far right will go far out of their way to avoid harming others and will agonize for days after telling a white lie. As you move from right to left, you find people who are pro-choice in more and more things: parental supervision of children,  church attendance, marriage, usage of soft drugs, euthanasia, abortion and numerous other attitudes and positions.

While no two people may be exactly the same, it appears that most people become pro-choice in the same things at relatively similar points along the line. Hence, someone armed with enough information and research can establish your attitude on many major items with a fair degree of accuracy if they can pinpoint your location on this line. 

There are some people who feel that this interconnection between social problems as well as other attitudes is something new. Actually, as our civilization matures and is better able to understand our world, we are finding more situations where things are interconnected.

Nearly 200 years ago, Oliver Wendell Holmes discovered how germs transmit diseases. At first, people refused to listen because they could not understand how something they could not see could move through society from person to person. What made this situation even worse was that the doctors wore frock coats where the stains were a mark of tenure in the medical community. Hence, they were bringing germs from person to person. Eventually, our society accepted the fact that germs spread through society and we changed our way of doing things for the good of society.

In more recent years we went through the same discovery regarding the spread of pollution and how cigarette smoke can harm other people. As a result, our society is again changing the way we do things and giving up personal freedoms to avoid harming other people and our society. 

More recent research is bordering on being mind boggling because it shows that so many other things beyond social problems are tied together this same way. A person's criterion for right and wrong goes way beyond social problems and impacts attitudes and actions on numerous items from marriage and fertility to political issues.

Recent research by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn in Europe disclosed that people who distrust the army and other institutions and are prone to demonstrate against them are statistically less likely to be married. They are also statistically less likely to ever get married and have children. This same research also discovered that people who find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable are statistically more likely to live alone or in a childless, marriageless union. It was also not surprising that people who seldom attend church are statistically less likely to be married and have children.

In the United States, Philip Longman pointed out that in progressive Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than kids while in conservative Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs. This obvious difference is not due to any shortage of canine breeders in Utah but is based on local fertility levels which in turn is based on the area's position on that line from left to right. Utah, where something like two-thirds of the residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints, has the highest fertility rate in the United States with 92 children born annually for every 1,000 women.

Where you stand on the line between left and right will also impact your attitude on church attendance and on family size. Longman pointed out that 47% of people who attend church want a family of three or more children. However, only 27% of people who seldom attend church want a family of this size.

More recent studies and comments have suggested that liberalism, permissiveness and the pro-choice attitude has been extremely pervasive in our society. Although obvious to any neutral observer, there have been studies showing that the American media is highly biased towards liberalism and permissiveness in both general and political topics. While I have yet to see statistics, there have been suggestions that this liberalism and permissiveness has also affected American business to a significant extent. Those holding this view point to recent business scandals and problems where individuals took advantage of an opportunity instead of doing what was best for others.

Would you believe it if someone told you that where you stand on the line from left to right may determine who you vote for and which political party you support? Statistics emerging following the election between President George Bush and Senator John Kerry are making this obvious.

Maps on election day showed the fact that liberal states and cities predominately voted for Senator John Kerry while the more conservative areas voted for President George Bush. Hence, the connection between voting and a person's position on that line from left to right are obvious. According to Philip Longman, states that voted for President George Bush had an average of an 11% higher fertility rate than states that voted for Senator John Kerry.

This same situation prevails with other political issues. Vermont, the first state to allow gay unions, has the nation's lowest fertility rate . . . 51 average annual births per 1,000 women.

Experts are turning this interconnection based on liberal and pro-choice attitudes into a science. They can ask you as few as four questions and determine your standpoint on several major issues with a high degree of accuracy. In some cases they can even tell you what your decision would be on issues you may never have thought about. They can also determine who you are likely to vote for in the next election.

Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Here are three areas where you can make an important difference in improving our society.

1. Right and Wrong

One of the primary reasons for the spread of liberalism, permissiveness and the pro-choice attitude is that we have stopped talking about right and wrong for fear of offending people who think they have a right to harm others. We need to make it clear that there is a right and a wrong. People do not have a right to harm others but rather a responsibility to help others.

It is important to make people understand that there are only two choices when faced with an action or decision that can harm others. You can be permissive, liberal and pro-choice and make your decision based on what an individual wants; or you can be unselfish and conservative and base your decision on what is best for others and society. Ask people to make a conscious decision. Get your minister, pastor or priest to talk about this decision between right and wrong. Try to get this question into print and talk about it.

Remember, the people on the liberal, permissive and pro-choice side say that they have a right to make a decision based on what they want regardless of what is best for others and society.

2. Interconnection and Desensitization

A second reason for the spread of liberalism, permissiveness and the pro-choice attitude is the mistaken idea that every decision or action can be determined individually. The reality is that most social problems as well as several other decisions and attitudes are interconnected. Moreover, liberalism, permissiveness and the pro-choice attitude spread through our society by a process known as desensitization.  This liberalism, permissiveness and selfishness has become so pervasive it has touched upon many if not most of our actions or decisions. Hence, each decision we make has to be evaluated in the light of its impact on society and its potential for desensitizing others to liberalism, permissiveness and the pro-choice attitude.

3. Statistics

One of the best ways to show what is best for society is through the use of statistics. This also has the advantage of pointing out what is best for society instead of offending people by pointing out what is worst.

All kinds of statistics are available on the benefits to society of marriage. Married people live longer, are healthier, are less likely to be homeless, are less likely to be on welfare, and are less likely to commit crimes or be the victim of crimes. Similar statistics are available to show the benefits of stay-at-home moms, church attendance, teaching morals in schools, and refraining from drug use and pre-marital sex. There is a page on the benefits to family, neighborhood and society on stay-at-home moms on the Unselfish.org Web site.

One of the biggest reasons for the spread of liberalism and permissiveness has been the move away from the family wage. What is the best arrangement for society? You can make a simple but obvious comparison by using a model of 50 men and 50 women. If all are married with a stay-at-home mother, there are 50 people working. Each family gets an average of two percent of available wages and mom is home to take care of the kids. Next is a model where the moms go to work. We now have 100 workers, two per family. Each family still gets an average of two percent of the available wages, but no one is home with the kids. Finally, we can look at a model where the couples divorced or never married. You now have 100 workers and 100 households, so each household now gets only one percent of the available wages and no one is home to take care of the kids.

It is easy to figure out who gains and who loses. The big winners are the big corporations, which helps explain why they supported this movement. They now get two workers for the price of one through the simple expedient of reducing the number of higher paying jobs. This goes a long was towards explaining why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The big losers are society and children. 

Care must be taken to avoid offending people and groups while educating them to what is best for society. The pro-choice attitude towards marriage and stay-at-home moms is a major factor in desensitizing our society. But it is better to say positive things about marriage and stay-at-home moms than to say negative things about single people and working mothers. Telling people that they need to be unselfish and put others first can be a dangerous occupation. Remember what happened to Jesus Christ.