Daniel Lapin: people who don’t have children are anti-social.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin has some strange ideas about health.

During the conversation with co-host Rick Green, Lapin made the case that God designed people to interact and thus social connections were integral to good health, which is why people ought to regularly attend religious services.

Yes, social interaction is necessary for good health.  Why is the conclusion that people should go to church, rather than people should just have social connections?  Is going bowling with friends less of a social connection than church?

The co-host of the Wallbuilders Live show, Rick Green, decided to come over the top.

That prompted Green to complain that under President Obama’s “socialized medicine,” states where people frequently attend church and are therefore healthier will end up having to “foot the bill” for all the states where people don’t attend church.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Is he really saying that if you’re not attending church then you’re not having social interactions?  What does he imagine people in less religious areas say?  “Sorry, can’t attend the orgy/dinner/movie/putt putt you’ve invited me to because I need to go be bored in church for a couple hours because my sister tells me I need to be more social”?

Not to be outdone by Green, Lapin had some extra crazy he had been saving.

That observation struck Lapin as quite insightful, who then offered his own bizarre theory that people who don’t have children are “anti-social” because they are forcing other people’s children to take care of them:

Green: If you are in a society and culture that has that connection and that places a high value on religion and affiliation there and you get the better health that results, it looks like now, the way that America is going with socialized medicine, those states that are like that are going to end up footing the bill for the states that choose the other path, which is less connection and less affiliation with religion and those things because they are going to have a higher health bill.  But now, with socialized medicine, we’ll pay for it.

Lapin: Oh, absolutely.  And by the way, that is also true of Social Security.  It’s all very well people choose not to have children; not only do they pay a health penalty for that but the truth is that your children and mine are going to have to pay for them. People say “it’s not true, I have my investments to take care of me, I don’t need children.” Well, that may be true, however your investments depend on a growing market of customers because your investments are in company and what characterizes a profitable company is that it has customers; it’s customer are my children.

Green: Yeah, that’s a good point, I hadn’t even thought about that. If you don’t have children, first of all, they are not contributing to the overall marketplace but also the tax base and everything else.

Lapin: That is exactly right.  So I really do think that a claim of anti-social behavior can be lodged at the door of people who choose not to have children.

Yes, because if kids aren’t squirming around and slowly sliding out of a pew while focused more on how miserable they are in a toddler-size shirt and tie than anything the pastor is saying, then they aren’t being social.  Coloring with other kids is more of a job.


About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • iknklast

    I think we need to see the statistics on his “healthier”. Last I checked, obesity and other health issues were a bigger problem in red states than in blue states – or is he saying that blue staters attend church more? I doubt it…and I haven’t seen any solid data that suggests kids make you healthier. In fact, for many of us (women) kids actually can harm our health in significant ways.

    Besides, the negative impacts of population growth are huge – environmental, and, yes, economic. More kids? Higher unemployment in a world where jobs have been eliminated by technology. Higher levels of pollution, leading to health problems. Higher CO2 output, leading to problems with global warming, which will lead to the spread of diseases.

    When the baby boomers are old enough to retire (and some of them already are old enough), that will free up a huge number of jobs, jobs that their underlings have been salivating to move into. I think we should also consider that.

  • Art Vandelay

    I don’t know about healthier, but it definitely makes you more stupid.

  • Jasper

    I’m not anti-social. I’m anti-children.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ WMDKitty


    • Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

      Then what do you put in your stew?

      • Jasper


  • Wren

    I wonder what he thinks of people who are infertile.

    • John Horstman

      Cursed by Yahweh, obvs. It’s in his authorized biography.

  • Steve

    Making sure people have no friends outside of church and that all social interaction is done in church is just a way to control them. That way, everything they do is approved by the church and there will always be gossip about them.

  • Loqi

    I think a claim of being a fucking moron can be lodged at the door of Daniel Lapin.

  • http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Bruce

    “Daniel Lapin: people who don’t have children are anti-social.”

    But . . . all the priests loooooooove the little boys in such a social way. How can we say that they are all anti-social?

  • Brad1990

    |”It’s all very well people choose not to have children; not only do they pay a health penalty for that but the truth is that your children and mine are going to have to pay for them.|”

    What? I… I don’t even… what?

    • Nate Frein

      He’s talking about social security, more or less.

      Basically, social security isn’t something you’re paying into to receive later. You’re paying for the current beneficiaries, with the assumption that when you’re a beneficiary, workers will be paying for you.

      Basically, he’s saying that since the children being popped out today are the ones that will be paying your SS benefits in the future, that you’re not doing your fair part to provide new workers.

      The problem with the argument is that it ignores the fact that for a while we were popping out more children than we were creating jobs for. If a there are less upcoming jobs than upcoming workers, then the excess available workers aren’t going to be paying into the benefits anyway (and will likely become a further drain).

  • nakedanthropologist

    And now we’ve hit a new low with That’s So Fucking Stupid. Wow, all this time I was anti-social and I never knew. It doesn’t matter that I work full-time, attend graduate school, spend time with numerous friends throughout the week, volunteer. attend the local theater/musical offerings, attend a knitting circle, or like to go out on hikes and kayaking trips with a local group I’m part of – I’m still childless and therefore anti-social. Or is it that I’m anti-social and therefore childless. Wow, just wow. And all this time I thought it was the debilitating medical condition since childhood….thank Mr. Lapin and Mr. Green for showing me what a true lying sack of shit is. I can’t believe I allowed myself to set the bar too high until now; congratulations fucktards.

  • Verimius

    I don’t think people who attend church regularly are healthier. I think that people who are healthy attend church, as compared with sick people who can’t get around too well.

    Also, the WHOLE idea of health insurance is that everybody pays for everybody. Healthy people pay for unhealthy people, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

    • Nate Frein

      Also, the WHOLE idea of health insurance is that everybody pays for everybody. Healthy people pay for unhealthy people, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

      Um, no.

      Insurance is basically a gamble that the company won’t have to pay out. The money paid in as premiums are calculated based on the risks that the company will actually have to pay out to the client.

      That’s why they don’t like covering pre-existing conditions.
      That’s why old people usually have to pay more
      That’s why people who smoke have to pay more
      That’s why overweight people have to pay more
      That’s why insurance companies have no problem with the contraception mandate. It’s cheaper to pay out for contraception than it is to pay out for pregnancy.

  • Liberated Liberal

    First of all:

    1) Healthiest State in the Country: Vermont; Least Religious State in the Country: Vermont
    2) Least Healthy State in the Country: Louisiana & Mississippi tied; Most Religious State in the Country: Mississippi! Louisiana is the 4th most religious. I found two completely unrelated studies and was able to put that together in about 2 minutes.


    There is a pretty major and obvious trend, as was mentioned above, that the most religious states are also the most egregiously unhealthy states. The biggest exception that I’ve seen (based on quick reading) is Utah. 2nd most religious state and the 7th healthiest in the country. But their religion is mostly Mormon and I’m sure that’s not what our dear friends here meant by “religious.” Seriously, do facts EVER come into consideration for these people? It is getting really old.

    Second of all:

    I am childless. And I am antisocial.
    So what? What exactly is the point?