Percentage of Republicans who believe in evolution is shrinking

[Jefferson23]

A Pew study finds that the percentage of Republicans who believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct has dropped 11 percent in about five years. That is suggestive of the country's broader polarization, the authors say.


By Harry Bruinius, Staff writer / December 31, 2013

In another sign of the deep and growing partisan divide, American views on evolution are growing apart, as well.

Less than five years ago, 54 percent of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of Democrats said the human species evolved over time. Today, however, the share of Republicans adhering to modern theories of human evolution has dropped significantly – to 43 percent – while the number of Democrats has climbed to 67 percent, though within the sampling error range, according to a Pew Research Center study of the public’s views of human evolution, released Monday.

"The gap is coming from the Republicans, where fewer are now saying that humans have evolved over time," said Cary Funk, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, according to Reuters.

As a whole, 6 of 10 Americans say they believe that “humans and other living things have evolved over time,” with a third rejecting evolution altogether, saying that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2013/1231/Percentage-of-Republicans-who-believe-in-evolution-is-shrinking

[Turbineguy]

1. Teaching ignorance is working.

The Romans had lead. We have Fox News and RW Hate Radio.

[napkinz]

11. FOX "News" ...

[rock]

2. Merely a result of

the "sinking ship" syndrome. As the smarter (naturally) repiggies desert the sinking ship, the lower their average IQ becomes doncha see. And of course these are the people that do not believe in evolution. In fact, I'm not sure they know what it means.

[Jefferson23]

3. I don't think they do, it is a trend that will change? I don't know. Looking at what we

see is absent, the ability to think, wonder, question, reject so much..but why?

snip*Those with the most pronounced skeptical views on human evolution remain white evangelical Protestants, who are a potent force in conservative politics and a key base of support for the tea party movement.

“God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell," said tea party Rep. Paul Broun (R) of Georgia in a 2012 speech. “It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Almost two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants say humans existed in their present form since the beginning of time, while nearly 8 in 10 “mainline” Protestants believe in evolution. In fact, though half of black Protestants are skeptical of human evolution, no other religious group in the country has a majority doubting human evolution.

[MisterP]

12. the mainline's been sidelined--but remember that even the SoBapts were Gleichschaltet in the 70s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention_conservative_resurgence

heck, even the Discovery Institute used to be lefty!

[Jefferson23]

13. egads, what a history of reform.

Thanks for the links and Happy New Year MisterP.

[MisterP]

14. Powell Memo off the starboard bow!

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/the-lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-to-/blog/36466/

that opened the floodgates on the Objectivists, shitgobbling racists pretending to be "heretics," trickle-down, and saying that the races are equal or that mentioning Hiroshima at an Enola Gay display was being "PoMo PC" (and it was all coordinated: just read the Heritage Foundation's "Policy Review" magazine, alongside articles on how the proto-Taliban, Angolan and Cambodian Maoists who think they're God, and the Space Shuttle need more money)

and Happy New Year back atcha!

[Jefferson23]

15. Fast forward and the irony is so thick, one needs a hack saw to cut through it:

“No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack,” he suggested, adding that the attacks were not coming just from a few “extremists of the left,” but also – and most alarmingly -- from “perfectly respectable elements of society,” including leading intellectuals, the media, and politicians.

Well that was certainly dealt with and controlled to their advantage. The poison that money
has had on our election cycles has strangled our chances..at least until we respond en masse.

[napkinz]

4. Kirk Cameron Attempts to Out-Think Stephen Hawking and Fails Miserably

by Simone Sanner
December 28, 2013

Rocket scientist and world-renowned unparalleled genius Kirk Cameron – just ask him, he will agree – challenged Stephen Hawking in an interview with TMZ regarding the answers to life, the universe, and everything.

“Professor Hawking is heralded as the ‘genius of Britain’,” said Cameron, “Yet he believes in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything and that life sprang from non-life.”

While even a five-year-old has some glimmer of a clue how chemicals come together to create amino acids, Cameron seems to have missed that lesson, however Cameron continued, “ (Hawking) says he knows there is no Heaven. John Lennon wasn’t sure. He said to pretend there’s no Heaven. That’s easy if you try. Then he said he hoped that someday we would join him.”

read more: http://aattp.org/kirk-cameron-attempts-to-out-think-stephen-hawking-and-fails-miserably/

[napkinz]

5. Kirk Cameron on evolution ...

[napkinz]

6. From Chuck Norris to Kirk Cameron, Famous ‘Christians’ Say STUPID Things (Videos)

by Simone Sanner
December 30, 2013

While Kirk Cameron seeks to educate us in evolution and “life, the universe, and everything,” we here at AATTP thought we would take a minute from side-splitting laughter to appreciate other crazy famous Christians have said. Long on belief and short on fact, there seems to be a trend where anything goes, as long as you can wrap it up in a homely homily and tie it up with a big Jesus bow. Enjoy some of our favorite quotes ...

Chuck Norris, bemoaning the spread of Atheism online, said, “While you think your kids are innocently surfing the Web, secular progressives are intentionally preying on their innocence and naïveté. What’s preposterous is that atheists are now advertising and soliciting on websites particularly created for teens.” That’s right, folks, Atheists everywhere are stalking your children! There’s a fight over the hearts and minds of your kids! As opposed to Christians’ desire to merely mate with them while they are still young. Jut ask Phil Robertson. ...


Stephen Baldwin shows us his parenting skills with the following statement, “Jesus or no Jesus, if my daughter started working in a strip club, I’d beat her ass.” We find ourselves wondering what he would do if his daughter started batting for Team Lesbian. Baldwin also used the bully pulpit on ‘Big Brother UK’ to preach about evolution. Watch here while Richard Dawkins hands Baldwin a steaming pile of shutthehellup.

Kirk Cameron has a novel way to eat…or is this food snorting? We’re not sure. We just think it’s kinda weird. “Put your nose into the Bible everyday. It is your spiritual food. And then share it.” Shared food snorts. Ew. We wonder what other snorts he shares with his friends. It IS Hollywood, after all.

full article: http://aattp.org/from-chuck-norris-to-kirk-cameron-famous-christians-say-stupid-things-videos/

[napkinz]

7. "Is our children learning?"

[Jefferson23]

8. lol, is that for real?

[napkinz]

9. yes ... it's been posted several times by a few members

American Exceptionalism!

We're Number 1! We're Number 1!

[Jefferson23]

10. That is pathetic and scary...never saw it before.

Thanks for the other links above too..unreal.

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. I feel so sorry for that poor kid.

I suppose someone has to make the fries,but that poor kid never had a chance.

[last1standing]

28. I feel sorry for us. That kid will probably end up a senator.

At least judging by the current lot, there's a good chance.

[Lizzie Poppet]

29. Good point!

Who knew Idiocracy was a documentary...?

[Phlem]

51. you forgot the "s" at then end of learning or was you not taught!?

-p

[RainDog]

17. Republicans on science committees, making decisions

This is what's terrible - of course, the whole idea that a political party is composed of so many who deny basic science is bad - but that they elect people who serve on important committees that make decisions about science is the real travesty for this nation.

If someone in his/her little fiefdom of religious superstition wants to believe Jesus rode dinosaurs (or lie about that belief to their voters) - that's sort of "eh" - but when they participate in the national political conversation - it's terrible for this nation.

[Jefferson23]

18. Definitely, this is not merely about the choice to believe the absurd due to ones religion. n/t

[RainDog]

20. They deny funding for basic research, too

Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.: ”All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,”

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/08/least_scientific_members_of_the_house_science_committee/

Broun’s not the only Republican on the committee who has a tenuous-at-best relationship with science:

Then there’s Todd Akin. In the course of his campaign for Missouri Senate, Akin made the following comments about rape: “First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin said. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Maryland Rep. Roscoe Bartlett had a similar take on pregnancies resulting from rape: “There are very few pregnancies as a result of rape, fortunately, and incest — compared to the usual abortion, what is the percentage of abortions for rape? It is tiny. It is a tiny, tiny percentage.”

Texas Rep. Randy Neugebauer is best known for yelling out, “It’s a baby killer!” during the House debate on Obama’s healthcare reform bill. But did you know he also drafted a resolution for Americans to ”join together in prayer to humbly seek fair weather conditions” after a series of destructive tornadoes and droughts?

In 2007, Congress held a hearing on a report that found global warming to be “unequivocal.” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California, who has no truck with man-made global warming, was skeptical about testimony regarding a period 55 million years ago when similar dramatic climate change occurred: “We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?”

Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin is a renowned climate change skeptic who has alternately decried ”scientific fascism” and described research on climate change as an “international conspiracy.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/meet-the-house-gop-s-anti-science-committee

Meet the House GOP anti-science committee

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) told an audience this week that former colleague Todd Akin was "partially right" when he claimed women resist pregnancy from "legitimate rape." Gingrey has something else in common with Akin -- both used to serve on the House Committee on Science.

The outgoing committee chair, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), has suggested that climate change is the product of a mass global conspiracy of scientists -- the overwhelming majority of whom have concluded that burning fossil fuels cause warming -- to obtain grant money. In 2011, he told National Journal he didn't believe climate change was man-made because "I don't think we can control what God controls."


...incoming chair Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who chastised the "lap dog" media in 2009 for not questioning the scientific consensus on climate change enough.

Lamar Smith, btw, was formerly head of the judiciary committee. He vowed not to allow a cannabis rescheduling bill out of his office - and he did exactly that. Now he's working to dumb down the federal govt's response to science issues.

[Jefferson23]

25. It is about control, absoutely. MisterP posted a memo via Greepeace I will share below, also

when you look back at the Rep candidates that were running in the last primaries..they said
openly, several of them, they rejected evolution. I think for one reason, they have enough
dumb voters who want to hear this and two, it makes it easier for them to reject stem cell
research and abortions. Once you reject basic science, you can allow yourself a religious
cover to reject a host of issues.

The Lewis Powell Memo - Corporate Blueprint to Dominate Democracy
Blogpost by Charlie Cray - August 23, 2011

Greenpeace has the full text of the Lewis Powell Memo available for review, as well as analyses of how Lewis Powell's suggestions have impacted the realms of politics, judicial law, communications and education.

Forty years ago today, on August 23, 1971, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., an attorney from Richmond, Virginia, drafted a confidential memorandum for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that describes a strategy for the corporate takeover of the dominant public institutions of American society.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/the-lewis-powell-memo-corporate-blueprint-to-/blog/36466/

[RainDog]

31. Yes. No doubt many are shills for big biz

And they use the stupidity of the religious right to provide cover so they're not just working to make it possible for business to pollute and exploit resources without any thought to the impact upon community or entire ecologies.

And some of them really are this stupid and they justify their horrid actions and making money from them by cloaking themselves in idiotic religious beliefs.

[Demo_Chris]

19. This is both sad and pathetic. nt

[RainDog]

21. Rep. Paul Broun's (R-GA) at the Liberty Baptist Church, September 27, 2012

BROUN: God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the Earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says.

And what I've come to learn is that it's the manufacturer's handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that's the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that.

[Demo_Chris]

23. If this is statistically true with Republicans than our party is not immune. nt

[RainDog]

26. True. Democrats have social conservatives, too

and they are comprised of religious voters, for the most part.

There are some who don't believe in evolution who don't subscribe to a religious belief that states the same, but they're few and far between. Catholics don't insist on creationism - the belief is really concentrated among fundamentalist churches. (who, btw, were supporters of Roe v. Wade until the protestant fundamentalists shifted to more conservative leadership and change their position... which demonstrates they are capable of changing their stances if they think it benefits them in some way.)

The biggest indicator of whether or not someone accepts that evolution is the best scientific evidence is the level of education. But those with higher levels of education are also those who are least likely to affiliate with any particular religious belief, too.

[Demo_Chris]

32. well said. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. Apparently DEvolution is just as real.

Are we not men? We are Republicans!

[last1standing]

27. Follow-up question: Has the percentage of people calling themselves republicans has shrunk?

I'm fine with the number of republicans believing in creationism going up so long as the actual number of citizens believing it has gone down.

[Jefferson23]

33. Among young voters, Democrats are ahead...Chris Christie lost out among

the young when he was voted in...it was the only demographic he lost.

In Virginia race recently, Dems youth increased by 1 percent and the Republican share of dropped by 14%.

[last1standing]

34. Then the actual number of republicans may not be increasing, merely the percentage.

As fewer citizens label themselves republicans, the percentage of those who still do will likely skew to the right. This could be an example of that.

At least I hope it is.

[Jefferson23]

37. I hope so too, yet the youth being presented via their religion, a denial of basic science is

disturbing.

[last1standing]

38. The best way to make an adult republican is it deny a child proper education.

Access to solid education in literature and social sciences is the more important issue of our time yet few (not even liberals) seem to grasp this. Math and science are important but moreso is an understanding of what to do with that knowledge. That understanding comes from literature and social sciences such as history.

[hunter]

30. I choose to be optimistic.

If the Republicans wants to be the party of insane ignorant racist sociopaths maybe the rest of us will outnumber them.

If most of humanity is ignorant, insane, racist, and sociopathic, there's little in this civilization worth saving.

[ananda]

35. That's probably because the base has shrunk so much.

..

[RainDog]

36. Anti-science Climate Change Republicans: 113th Congress

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/

160 elected representatives from the 113th Congress have taken over $55.5 million from the fossil fuel industry that is the driving force behind the carbon emissions that cause climate change. They deny what over 97 percent of climate scientists say is happening — current human activity creates the greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat within the atmosphere and cause climate change. And their constituents are paying the price, with Americans across the nation suffering 419 climate-related national disaster declarations since 2011.

90 percent of the Republican leadership in both House and Senate deny climate change

17 out of 22 Republican members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, or 77 percent, are climate deniers

22 out of 30 Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, or 73 percent deny the reality of climate change

100 percent of Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans have said climate change is not happening or that humans do not cause it

The link, above, notes the monies candidates have received from dirty energy and how this reflects their position on climate change, as well. Some great info at that link.

[Jefferson23]

40. They have just about every conceivable issue covered, don't they. We have an up hill

battle...great links and thank you.

[RainDog]

41. speaking of the devils...

crosspost from this thread - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024262649

A new study published in Nature suggests that climate change is even worse than scientists had previously anticipated, upgrading the forecast from "dangerous" to "catastrophic." According to the study's authors, temperatures are currently snared in an upward spiral: As earth gets hotter, the heat prevents sunlight-reflecting clouds from forming, trapping more heat and further exacerbating the problem. The result could be a temperature climb of 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

The alarming report follows yet another confirmation, this time by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that humans are almost indubitably the drivers of climate change. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has expressed concern, stating that "if this isn't an alarm bell, then I don't know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it."

But the unnerving escalaton in climate change is unlikely to be abated without significant U.S. support—and for the time being, the Republican Party insists on stonewalling any efforts to offset the human-caused warming process. Given that the U.S. is the second biggest contributor to climate change, its participation in any international resolution is absolutely vital. Yet with one major political party blocking such support, the odds seem increasingly likely that 2100 will, indeed, bring with it a "catastrophic" increase of global heat.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/12/31/climate_change_vastly_worse_than_previously_thought.html

...but at least their oil industry buddies and others will make a shitload of money in the here-and-now, and they'll skim off that largesse...

I think this nation needs to turn to the Native American philosophy about tending the earth for our children's children, but this honest "conservative" argument gets lost in all the bullshit about a war on christians and their beliefs.

[Jefferson23]

44. We have to and did not Obama have a percentage of support from some religious groups during

the first election cycle? I know it was not a huge presence, but it seemed encouraging at the
time to see they were willing to place more importance on the issue of climate change rather than
their narrow focus of their religious beliefs. I think the support came more from young religious
voters..if I recall correctly.

Thanks for the links, too.

[RainDog]

45. I don't remember that

do you have a link? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

There's a guy who was in a doc I saw years ago. He's a CEO and he came to an understanding that he couldn't operate his business for the sake of one quarter's profit report because he has a responsibility to leave a world for his grandchildren to live in. Ah, found a link... the full movie is on youtube, but I saw it in a theater a while back.

Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, the world's largest commercial carpet manufacturer, had an environmental epiphany and re-organized his $1.4 billion company on sustainable principles. His company may be a beacon of corporate hope, but is it an exception to the rule?

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

He's not particularly religious, tho.

The breakdown, unfortunately, indicates that protestant fundamentalism, again, stands in the way of progress on an issue that impacts the entire world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/global-warming-and-religi_b_864014.html

Evidence exists that many who deny the dangers of global warming do so out of religious conviction. A Pew survey asked the following question: "Is there solid evidence the earth is warming?" Let me just give the percentages who said yes and agreed that it is the result of human activity:

Total U.S. population 47 %; Unaffiliated with any church 58 %; White mainline Protestants 48 %; White, non-Hispanic Catholics 44 %; Black Protestants 39 %; White evangelical Protestants 34 %.

But the good news, looking at those numbers, is that the number of unaffiliated is growing and growing fastest among younger voters. That's good news because they aren't told to believe lies about science in order to practice a religious faith. Here's some info from the last Pew Poll:

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

The survey finds that the number of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith today (16.1%) is more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with any particular religion as children. Among Americans ages 18-29, one-in-four say they are not currently affiliated with any particular religion.

The Landscape Survey confirms that the United States is on the verge of becoming a minority Protestant country; the number of Americans who report that they are members of Protestant denominations now stands at barely 51%. Moreover, the Protestant population is characterized by significant internal diversity and fragmentation, encompassing hundreds of different denominations loosely grouped around three fairly distinct religious traditions - evangelical Protestant churches (26.3% of the overall adult population), mainline Protestant churches (18.1%) and historically black Protestant churches (6.9%).

While those Americans who are unaffiliated with any particular religion have seen the greatest growth in numbers as a result of changes in affiliation, Catholicism has experienced the greatest net losses as a result of affiliation changes. While nearly one-in-three Americans (31%) were raised in the Catholic faith, today fewer than one-in-four (24%) describe themselves as Catholic. These losses would have been even more pronounced were it not for the offsetting impact of immigration. The Landscape Survey finds that among the foreign-born adult population, Catholics outnumber Protestants by nearly a two-to-one margin (46% Catholic vs. 24% Protestant); among native-born Americans, on the other hand, the statistics show that Protestants outnumber Catholics by an even larger margin (55%

I posted this here, long ago. It breaks down a lot of the problems with fundy protestant religious belief for this nation, when it impacts politics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002185204

edit to add: the problem with religious believers in the U.S. is that conflate social democracy with "godless commies" and other such b.s. from nearly a century ago. Nations in the west without a large number of fundamentalists have better quality of life indices across the board. The U.S. is the only western nation with this backward pov.

[Jefferson23]

46. Obama did have a percentage, a couple of links below. It does seem among the youth, to a degree,

there is a chance they will support such legislation.

snip*Greenberg cited polling data showing that younger evangelicals were more likely to support Obama than older evangelicals and that the under-30 set was more progressive on the issues of climate change and gay marriage.
- See more at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=48870#sthash.mGy60d5r.dpuf

snip* Mr. Obama and his advisers are seeking support among relatively moderate evangelicals and are trying to take advantage of signs that some conservative Christians are rethinking their politics, urged along by a new generation of leadership and intensified concern about issues including climate change, genocide, AIDS and poverty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.html?_r=0

[RainDog]

47. I've heard conservative talking heads say the gay marriage issue is lost

And that younger evangelical voters are sick of the culture war attitude of the Republican shills among religious conservatives.

But putting money to work via churches for poverty work - it's a conundrum for me. I recognize that, within the African American community, the church has had a powerful leadership influence in non-violent social change. It has existing infrastructure within communities - but I don't see why a community rather than faith group cannot do these same things.

from your link -

With an eye toward courting evangelical voters, Senator Barack Obama arrived here on Tuesday to present a plan to expand on President Bush’s program of investing federal money in religious-based initiatives that are intended to fight poverty and perform community aid work.

“Now, I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square,” Mr. Obama intends to say. “But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups.”

He thus embraced the heart of a program, established early in the Bush administration, that critics say blurs the constitutional separation of church and state. Mr. Obama made clear, however, that he would work to ensure that charitable groups receiving government funds be carefully monitored to prevent them from using the money to proselytize and to prevent any religion-based discrimination against potential recipients or employees.

Mr. Obama is also proposing $500 million per year to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps for students. He proposes elevating the program to the “moral center” of his administration, calling it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

The flip side of this issue, and a problem, is the white flight that came about with desegregation in the past, and the conservative attempt to use vouchers to fund schools that teach things like creationism and try to remove Jefferson's importance from textbooks and pretend that African-Americans were better off when slavery existed. The white protestant mega-churches that create a mostly segregated social life don't do anyone any favors, imo.

Can you support one and not be supporting the other?

The program was created to pay off the political support of the religious right for Republicans.

I have a hard time, because I don't find that it's reality, to claim that faith-based anything is a moral center. I really don't think faith makes anyone more moral and I've seen as many moral people who claim no faith as those who do... so why make this about faith?

To put it in other terms - if the President said... here, I want to give money to this atheist group to fund a summer reading program - how do you think the religious would react to that exclusion?

[Jefferson23]

48. We are essentially in agreement..and since the first election cycle, have these supporters

paid off in terms off aiding legislation? Not that I am aware of. Another other issue is,
the youth who do support political change may be in the same fix as progressives
with regard to their perspective groups. Who has the power, the financial backing,
progressives or center right Democrats? More open minded Evangelicals or their
stead fast hardliners?

I don't think faith based anything is a moral center either, religion is a threat on many levels
in US politics..but they do vote, so the objective is to try and educate them to your side.

I have enjoyed our exchanges here.

[RainDog]

49. Thanks, I've enjoyed this too

I'm not sure, again, what your first sentence is about. Some of what we're talking about has to do with the south, mostly, and parts of the midwest. Do you mean, in terms of who gets elected?

As far as funding reading programs - to me, the goal of that should be to help children become better readers, no matter what anyone's political affiliation may be. That can be done with religion-neutral texts, etc. Like I said - seems like it could be done at schools via reading programs, too, not churches.

But in general, as far as programs to address poverty and education and opportunity - I've really started thinking along the lines of MLK, when he moved from viewing the social problems of this nation from race to class. Obviously he never meant that race did not have an impact upon people, or that people should not have protections based upon the long history of racial injustice here, but, in order to deal with the underlying ignorance of racism itself, lifting up the entire population would address the issue of race, too.

Too often politicians divide people here by claiming this group or that one gains at the expense of the other, when the reality is that, unless you're among the top of the heap in income, and few are, you're better off to make peace and break bread with those who share your concerns for affordable housing, food, good schools, safe neighborhoods... that's what the overwhelming majority of us want.

Anyway, that approach is a basic minimum income for all Americans. Not means tested. Basic, in that it meets basic needs for housing, food, education.

One good thing about this approach is that it's possible to find a bipartisan agreement on some of the issue.

Conservatives are willing to look at the issue because it can reduce the size of the govt. Instead of looking at the issue of drugs, or reading, etc. as single issue - look at the issue as poverty itself and trust that the overwhelming number of people will make good decisions based on where they are in life. So, instead of lots of federal agencies overseeing various programs, a basic minimum would cover most issues - not all, but most.

That may sound pie-in-the-sky, but the few experiments have shown good results - one city in Canada tried it, Brazil is trying something like it with fairly spectacular results for eradicating poverty.

Along with a basic minimum, we have to move from zero tolerance to harm reduction and create spaces where people who are chemically addicted can get treatment, rather than prison, and, as far as our culture is concerned, we need lots of great geeks as examples - and we have some now, but we need more. If we removed the profit motive from the drug culture, those who get rich off it wouldn't be subculture heros, just like Al Capone was, eventually, no longer a hero of the working class in Chicago.

Personally, I think drugs should be decriminalized and addicts should get drugs from the govt. in places with clean needles, etc. We would reduce the side costs of drugs - HIV, Hep, and other medical issues, and we'd save money by meeting the addict where he or she is at, rather than, again, saying all or nothing. Portugal has had success with this route.

Anyway, drug abuse, like poverty, reaches across racial lines - all social issues do.

A basic minimum income would give working people some of the same power as a union to refuse to work jobs that offer poor wages and working conditions... which is where I see the most opposition coming from - from those who want a labor force that is desperate and unable to organize. Hopefully the service workers strikes will make some changes.

I don't know how such an idea would sit with some who want to live in a sin-based world and view problems as some sort of other-worldly battle to the death. Sort of drifting here, but, for me, the problem with protestant fundies is this resistance to things that can improve overall quality of life, if, in doing so, we don't demonize this group or another.

[Jefferson23]

50. Yes, I mean who gets elected. Since the indicators tell us there is a percentage of

the religious right willing to vote across party lines for some issues, we can/should work to
continue that trend. Although I do not disagree with your stated approaches, I do
wonder as I said earlier, as progressives we find ourselves as disenfranchised by our
own party as those religious youth likely feel within their own political circles.

With that said, one can only compromise so much before you have a diluted initiative
that moves much of nothing forward to improve the environment, poverty etc.
I do not have an answer to how we free ourselves of the influence of money in elections.
We can make part of the mantra, you are voting against your best interests, and yes, you
can hold onto your religious beliefs, privately..ie., no one is forced to have an abortion.

Your religion does not warrant you accepting that corporation should have the tax loop holds
that you never would, no 1%'er should have access to health care that you don't have.
I don't think one needs to demonize anyone in order to educate citizens but it does take
an organized effort.

I recall reading an interview with Chomsky, he said he listened to right wing radio, often.
Not to hear the hosts, but to listen to the callers. He felt that on some level that many
knew there was an injustice ( crash '08 ) but they were also lost about what actually had
taken place and why. Of course they were asking the worst people for guidance, but his
point is well take, imo. They were ripe for a truthful reply...we have to find a strategy to
broaden their understanding and get their votes.

[Vattel]

39. Wow the average IQ of a Repug is still dropping.

Who would have thought that it could get even lower?

[distantearlywarning]

42. That's because the non-crazy Republicans are abandoning the sinking ship

The only people left who call themselves Republican for polling purposes are the really nutty ones, so of course their nutty ideas now represent a greater percentage of the Republican viewpoint.

[TheKentuckian]

43. Just more evidence of "meeting in the middle" being dangerously stupid.

Because the middle ground with weapons grade stupid and dragon like avarice is going to be dangerously stupid and perilously greedy.

Even the most minimal standards of acceptable are too far to see with a ground based telescope when you have go where these folks live and it is like this on virtual every topic.

[ArcticFox]

52. Is it possible the Rs that believed in evolution

Stopped believing in Republicans?