a very, very religious place.nReligion, he observed, is everywherenin American culture — onnAmerican coins, on American television,nand in American politics. ThisnFrenchman found that religion plays ansignificant role in the American purpose,nas expressed in the Declarationnof Independence. A self-evident truthnof the Declaration, it will be remembered,nis “that all men are creatednequal.” American politics begins withnthe presupposition that “men are created”nby a Creator, by God. Thisnreligious theme in American history isnnot found in French history, accordingnto Delaroche. Thanks (or no thanks) tonthe thinking of the Jacobins, then”French formula” assumes that “mennare born free and equal.” Like Laplace,nwho told Napoleon that hencould explain the universe withoutnthat unnecessary hypothesis callednGod, the founders of the French Republicnwere sure they could accountnfor the Rights of Man without botheringnwith religion.nThe proposition “that all men arencreated equal” by a Creator still winsnapproval from almost all Americansnand it still resonates with importantnimplications for our public life. Perhapsnthe sharpest disagreement aboutnthe meanings of that proposition maynbe seen in the debate over abortion. Inntime, it is reasonable to expect that thenbelief that all are created equal by anCreator will fade among those whonregard the unborn as a form of propertynthat the owner may discard at hernoption. The gifts of a Creator constitutenmore than private property.nThese implications and others willnprobably remain hidden from mostnAmericans until they are discovered byna keen eye. Perhaps by another Frenchneye.n—Paul StallsworthnArtistic talent does not always go unrecognized.nChronicles’ Septembern1985 cover, a painting by ZbigniewnFitz, was recentiy featured in Printnmagazine’s Regional Design Annualn1986. Print Editor Martin Fox expressednhis appreciation in a singlenword: “terrific.” Zbigniew Fitz and hisnwife, Emilia, are, of course, regularnillustrators for Chronicles, and it givesnus great pleasure that we have helpednthem to gain a token of the recognitionnthey deserve.nTeenagers are always in trouble. Backnin the 1950’s we criticized them forntheir apathy. In the 60’s they were tooncommitted, too radical. By the 70’snthey had once again lapsed into indifference,nand by the 80’s we startedncriticizing college students for theirngreed and crass materialism. If it isn’tnone thing, it’s another. A few years agonall the newspapers and family magazinesnwere panicked over teen suicide;nit was as if high school and collegenstudents were rejecting life. More recentiy,nit is teenage pregnancy that isnattracting all the attention. Young girlsnhaving babies out of wedlock is, innfact, a serious problem, but it is alsonthe very opposite of suicide. Whatevernelse it is, bearing children is not anrejection of life.nThe recent hit by Madonna, “PapanDon’t Preach,” gets at the heart of thenquestion. Millions of kids bought thenrecord and listened to it on the radio.nWhat they heard was a girl insisting onnthe rightness of carrying her baby tonterm, even over the objections of anstuffy adult world that thinks everythingnought to be planned, organized,nand sanitized. Planned Parenthood,nguidance counselors, and social workersndisplayed a predictable shock andnoutrage. In their opinion, the song willngive girls the wrong idea and encouragenthem to throw caution to thenwinds. They’ll think having babies isnfun. Everyone will want to do it.nI don’t know how many Americannteenagers think bearing and rearing anchild is something to do for kicks. Insomehow doubt it is a very big number.nThey probably do not know all thenwork and suffering that is involvedn—but nobody does until it’s too late. Ifnwe did, the human race would die outnin a generation. There is a great deal ofntalk about the new underclass ofnfemale-headed households, but manynof these unwed mothers come fromnthe underclass. Their failure to rise innthe world may be due to a variety ofncauses.nUnwed teenage mothers do presentna serious challenge to our society, butnone old-fashioned answer used to benmarriage. Early marriage is not thenbest of all possible ways to live, but itnnnseems preferable to the alternative.nThen why are we so terrified by teenagenpregnancy? It’s not as if Americanwere suffering from overpopulation.nOn the contrary, the other big scarenthese days seems to be underpopulation.nAre we, then, afraid that the youngnmothers won’t want to keep the babies,nonce they are born? There’s an easynanswer to this one, too: the long waitingnlists at adoption agencies.nThere is a serious problem withnteenage pregnancy, but it is not socialnor political: It is the moral problem ofnpremarital sex. Most old-fashioned ornreligious Americans think that sex outsidenmarriage is morally wrong. Butnold-fashioned Americans do not set upnthe sex-education programs in publicnschools, where young people arentaught to “discover” their own valuesnand to despise sexual restraint as annantiquated remnant of Victorian morality.nDay after day, year after year,nhormonally unbalanced adolescentsnreceive the same message: If it feelsngood, do it—but don’t get caught.nPromiscuity is fine so long as younrespect the other person and take precautions.nDon’t let real life get in thenway of pleasure.nAs any parent or teacher knows, kidsnlisten to only half of what we try to tellnthem. In this case, they hear the Donbut not the Don’t. But people havenbeen pointing out for years the directnconnection between sex education andnrising rates of teenage pregnancy. Thenonly answer seems to be more of thensame: more classes and films, morenpills and devices, more abortions.nWhat the older generation is offeringnis a safe and boring world of 1.2nchildren per couple, a world in whichnsex is divorced from life. But thenyounger generation is not buying it.nBy the time they’re 25, the youngnAmericans have received enough indoctrinationnto accept a world withoutnrisk, existence without life. But whennwe are young, we’re full of life andnbursting with sap. We’re ready to becomensoldiers or saints, great lovers orngreat scientists. The young know, instinctively,nthat sex has a purpose,nbecause they have not yet had the lovenof life drained out of them by dodderingnguidance counselors and radio psychologists.nAnd that’s the trouble withnkids.nJANUARY 1987 / 7n