Relax liberals, the Christians didn't do it.

[Rogue]

A tidal wave of churchgoers won the day. As Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin notes, the percentage of the voting electorate that attends church once a week was 42%—precisely what it was in 2000. And President Bush's percentage of that vote was 58%, up a mere point from 2000. Bush's greatest gains came among voters who attend church less often, including an increase of 4 percentage points of those who never go.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...782133,00.html

[cowpaste]

Um...just because the percentage didn't go up doesn't mean it wasn't the Christians' fault. The majority of them still voted Bush. In fact, the best predicter of what you were going to vote was whether or not you were Christian.

[Inquartata]

A tidal wave of churchgoers won the day. As Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin notes, the percentage of the voting electorate that attends church once a week was 42%—precisely what it was in 2000. And President Bush's percentage of that vote was 58%, up a mere point from 2000. Bush's greatest gains came among voters who attend church less often, including an increase of 4 percentage points of those who never go.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...782133,00.html

Don't try to confuse 'em with facts, this is the explanation upon which the disgruntled liberal intelligentsia have settled and they will not be stirred from it. "Jesusland" just resonates too well with their preconceived notions and compliments their sense of superiority. Let them have their conceit, and instead of concentrating on the real causes of their continuing diminution as a force in American politics----and possibly fixing them---they'll continue to squander their energy on pettishness and recriminations. And probably continue to struggle.

[telkanuru]

Do you mind me reacting in an annoyed fashion to the assumption that any God-fearing Christian would automatically be a conservative? Because that's what I'm doing. I blame the defeat on a poorly informed electorate that cares more about perception than substance and the fact that we ran a wishy-washy candidate who didn't stand anywhere. Personally, I would have preferred to run a candidate who lost but stood for something than one who didn't and won anyway. It's not that liberals have no spine, it's that the Democratic party thinks that we don't.

[Drifter]

I truly wish there was an emoticon for a spit take style burst of laughter.

"Don't confuse them with facts" ?? That is to laugh. Did ya notice how that article didn't have ANY specific citations in it? Not one from ANY actual polls?
"As Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin notes, the percentage of the voting electorate that attends church once a week was 42%—" Where can I read this for myself instead of just believing the author of the article?

Confuse them with facts? How about more like, "confuse them with Jedi mind tricks."

"These aren't the people voting this country into a Talibanesque theocracy" - ObiWan Bush

Here are ACTUAL polling results from Non-Partisan groups like the Annenburg project, (You know the group that runs Factcheck.org that website that VP Cheney citied as a reputable source)

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycent...d_11-19_pr.pdf

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycent...2011-12_pr.pdf

http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm#Exit


I reference particularly the first Annenburg report in which the last question shows a 6 point rise in Born Again/ Evangelical Protestants that think of themselves as Republicans since 2000. If the PDA file allowed cutting and pasting I'd post the first three paragraphs of page two which point out rather clearly that the greatest jump in new Republicans comes from the evangelical white protestant group (big surprise).

But wait... isn't Time one of those "mainstream" Liberal Bias magazines that can never be trusted because they're just towing the liberal party line? Hmmm......

[cowpaste]

You are probably annoyed because you are one of the few Christians who is more of a Democrat. The truth is, the majority of Christians are indeed conservatives. It's just a fact, and I don't think it's an assumption on my part.

As for Kerry being "wishy-washy," could someone explain to me why people think this way? I really don't see it.

Do you mind me reacting in an annoyed fashion to the assumption that any God-fearing Christian would automatically be a conservative? Because that's what I'm doing. I blame the defeat on a poorly informed electorate that cares more about perception than substance and the fact that we ran a wishy-washy candidate who didn't stand anywhere. Personally, I would have preferred to run a candidate who lost but stood for something than one who didn't and won anyway. It's not that liberals have no spine, it's that the Democratic party thinks that we don't.

[telkanuru]

You are probably annoyed because you are one of the few Christians who is more of a Democrat. The truth is, the majority of Christians are indeed conservatives. It's just a fact, and I don't think it's an assumption on my part.

As for Kerry being "wishy-washy," could someone explain to me why people think this way? I really don't see it.

Actually, I'm not a Christian at all. I know the majority of christians are conservative, but I still object to the premise of the thread.

Of course, I'm also holding out for the facts that Christ
1) Hung out with poor people and hookers
2) Advocated paying your taxes
3) Advocated non-violence
4) Walked everywhere (no greenhouse gasses )
5) Supported the use of mind-altering substances (water->wine)

will cause people to realise that if he were here today, he'd probly vote Democratic. Jesus Christ was possibly one of the most liberal figures in our history.

[esskreemr]

Actually, I'm not a Christian at all. I know the majority of christians are conservative, but I still object to the premise of the thread.

Of course, I'm also holding out for the facts that Christ
1) Hung out with poor people and hookers
2) Advocated paying your taxes
3) Advocated non-violence
4) Walked everywhere (no greenhouse gasses )
5) Supported the use of mind-altering substances (water->wine)

will cause people to realise that if he were here today, he'd probly vote Democratic. Jesus Christ was possibly one of the most liberal figures in our history.

You left out that he also went head to head with the religious elite of his time who he considered to possess false morals.

[cowpaste]

They don't care that Jesus was liberal. They just want to keep prayer in school and "under God" in the Pledge.

[pkt]

Cowpaste et al,

Jesus was not a liberal. He was a small-c communist in the strictest sense of the word. If not a communist, he'd be a socialist. the way the word liberal is used, it's original meaning has been corrupted, like jihad.

--)---------

The following piece makes one wonder about the mental state of the correspondents to this poll. This was in today's CBS News.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in657083.shtml

Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

NEW YORK, Nov. 22, 2004

(CBS) Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.

There are also differences between voters who supported Kerry and those who supported Bush: 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters.

VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM

God created humans in present form
All Americans 55% [D'oh!!! - PK]
Kerry voters 47%
Bush voters 67%

Humans evolved, God guided the process
All Americans 27% [Shaking of head! -PK]
Kerry voters 28%
Bush voters 22%

Humans evolved, God did not guide process
All Americans 13%
Kerry voters 21%
Bush voters 6%

Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution. Only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.

Which makes me wonder:
~ How many of these 2/3 of American are the 17% of American who own passports.
~ What are those things that we call dinosaurs, Peking Men, Lucy and other such fossils. Are these all a conspiracy by the so-called scientists?
~ How this compares with other countries. Countries like Spain, Italy, UK/Britain. I know where Canadians are though i do not have the numbers. Because of the more multicultural nature of the population of Canadians, creationism is not even on the radar screen except in some pockets like Abbotsford in BC, in the Fraser Valley. That's BC's Bible belt. Yes, very small belt.

PK

[telkanuru]

As Lewis Black has said to great effect

"Fossils. Fossils. FOSSILS!

I win."

[Inquartata]

Did ya notice how that article didn't have ANY specific citations in it? Not one from ANY actual polls?

"No citations" is not the same as "no facts", Drifter. It just means they have to be independently verified if you're skeptical.

I don't object to your rejecting on the grounds that they aren't properly supported by provision of the data or sources, just to the implication that they are necessarily invented because of the way the article is laid out.

I reference particularly the first Annenburg report in which the last question shows a 6 point rise in Born Again/ Evangelical Protestants that think of themselves as Republicans since 2000.

However, reported voter affiliation among registered voters does not demonstrate either that (1) they voted, or that (2) they voted a certain way more this election because of their religiosity.

If the PDA file allowed cutting and pasting I'd post the first three paragraphs of page two which point out rather clearly that the greatest jump in new Republicans comes from the evangelical white protestant group (big surprise).

You mean these?

Clymer said “Our data reflects steady Republican gains, though both parties gained allegiance from independents in a year of a spirited presidential contest. Republicans have been looking for a party realignment in which they would assume dominant status ever since Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980, and they moved closer this year.”

“But the narrowing of the gap is more reflective of Democratic losses than Republican gains,” he said. In presidential elections in the 1960s, according to the data of the American National Election Survey, just 27 percent of Americans called themselves Republicans but 48 percent said they were Democrats.


The biggest Republican gains were recorded among evangelical white Protestants. In 2000, 42 percent called themselves Republicans, and 25 percent called themselves Democrats, a 17 percentage point Republican advantage. In 2004, the margin increased to 25 points, as 48 percent said they were Republicans and 23 percent said they were Democrats.

To cut and paste from a PDA file using Adobe Acrobat Reader you must first click on the text select tool ( the "button" with the capital T and a little square beside it ) then proceed as usual. Used to drive me crazy trying to do it.

[Inquartata]

Of course, I'm also holding out for the facts that Christ

3) Advocated non-violence

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/sword.html

4) Walked everywhere (no greenhouse gasses )

Then why is it that every time I tune past a religious channel on the TV and there is a religious dramatization of some Biblical story playing Jesus is riding on a donkey? ( Lots of greehouse gases there, my friend! )

[Drifter]

"No citations" is not the same as "no facts", Drifter. It just means they have to be independently verified if you're skeptical.

I don't object to your rejecting on the grounds that they aren't properly supported by provision of the data or sources, just to the implication that they are necessarily invented because of the way the article is laid out.

However, reported voter affiliation among registered voters does not demonstrate either that (1) they voted, or that (2) they voted a certain way more this election because of their religiosity.

I'm not rejecting the article on an implication that the facts of that article were invented, I'm rejecting the article because the "facts" were invented, and I've provided non-partisain proof of the invention of facts.

Your point that voter affiliation does not demonstrate that they voted or how they voted is true, however that is the reason I included the pollingreports.com exit poll showing 94% of registered Republicans voted for Bush. Therefore it can be said with a certain amount of clarity that the most likely outcome of the 6% of evangelical white protestants that changed registered party alligences from 2000 to 2004, 94% voted for Bush. Now I know you'd like to say, "but that's not a certainty", and you're right but I feel that you're more that smart enough to see the reality of the situation. I mean really, you're going to tell me that newly registered evangelical white protestants aren't going to vote for an evangelical/ born again president? Do you want to try to sell me some land in Florida next?

Now what's not been discussed as of yet is the original wave of religious right voters that came onto the political scene prior to the 2000 election. All in all this conversation about a 6% addition to a voting block seems rather silly when one looks at the extreme change that took place prior to the 2000 election.

Thank you kindly for the info regarding PDF cut and pastes. I've always just presumed that since I couldn't right click to a menu, cut & paste had been disabled to preserve copyright since that was a big Adobe issue a couple years back. (Of course I always thought that was kind of silly considering one can always print anything to a file and edit it, or cut & paste it from there.)

[Drifter]

Cowpaste et al,

~ What are those things that we call dinosaurs, Peking Men, Lucy and other such fossils. Are these all a conspiracy by the so-called scientists?
PK

Actually, spending a great deal of time in the American Bible belt, and holding a BA in Religious History (yes I know that may seem hard to believe based on some of my views), I've had the opportunity to discuss dinosaurs, et al with some strongly religious folk. The opinion of the people I've discussed this with is that the fossil record is a test placed by either God or Satan, depending on whom you talk to, designed to cause you to question your faith. Of course the only answer for them is to deny the validity of the fossil record thus assuring eternal afterlife. Whether or not they're right... I'll leave that for someone else to discuss.

[cowpaste]

I'll discuss. It proves that IQ v. party affiliation chart.

[L.O.A.S.]

As Lewis Black has said to great effect

"Fossils. Fossils. FOSSILS!

I win."

Although I enjoy Lewis Black rantings...... where is the fossil records to support evolution (e.g. fossils of a saber toothed tiger, then fossils of something like a saber tooth tiger, but not quite, then fossils of something less saber toothed, more tiger, but not quite tiger etc.)?

What are those things that we call dinosaurs, Peking Men, Lucy and other such fossils. Are these all a conspiracy by the so-called scientists?

I would say that God squeezed them in between versus 20 through 25 (see below). I always thought Genesis chapter 1 did a good job painting a picture for those guys long ago who didn't sit through high school science class, on the big flick on how God created the world. Would you agree that the following generally recounts the sequence of how the earth developed from a lifeless planet with gaseous atmosphere to the crowded lively party place of today? Keep in mind that this was meant to be illustrative, and not literal (e.g. days represent periods of time).

Genesis 1


The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [1] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning-the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning-the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

[L.O.A.S.]

While on the subject, did anyone catch the PBS special "The Question of God: Sigmund Freud and C.S. Lewis w/ Dr. Armand Nicholi"? I missed it, but heard that it presents these two mens opposing world views in a entertaining and interesting way.

[Soldier]

If the PDA file allowed cutting and pasting I'd post the first three paragraphs of page two which point out rather clearly that the greatest jump in new Republicans comes from the evangelical white protestant group (big surprise).

But wait... isn't Time one of those "mainstream" Liberal Bias magazines that can never be trusted because they're just towing the liberal party line? Hmmm......

Actually, you can cut and paste from .pdf files; PM me if you'd like to be pointed in the right direction.

And it's toeing the line, rather as an aside. Even more as a side, do you know what that phrase refers to?

[Soldier]

Woops, just saw Inq's posts. Oh well.

Good thoughts, LOAS.