Could you vote for a Democrat who didn't accept evolution?

[echochamberlain]

If, in a Senate vote where you come from, the Democrat believed that the Earth was made in the last 6 to 10 thousand years, or said that 'the jury was out' on evolution, would you vote for them?
If the race was close, and the balance of the Senate was riding on it, then I would hold my nose and vote; but in any other situation, I'm not sure...I don't think any Democratic in the modern age could get the presidential nomination if they didn't accept Darwin - but in a crazy hypothetical circumstance, if the Republican nominee accepted evolution, but the Democrat didn't, I might be in a bit of a pickle...
I'm not authorized to start a poll, so I'm putting it out there to spark a debate.

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I can't imagine

Any modern era Democrat that would not believe in evolution.

[FrodosPet]

49. But we gotta draw the line there: "You must accept evolutionary truth as a...

...Democratic candidate for office". Does anyone know how to propose that as a standing party regulation?

However, I don't think we are ready to require atheism from Dems, are we? Reality check: Religion is still a very powerful force in the African American community and trying to tie anti-religious requirements to party identification could go REALLY bad.

[JustAnotherGen]

58. I'm not talking about the voters

I'm talking about the folks we would hire to do the job.

The challenges we face with the environment alone - simply do not allow for supernatural fairy tales to be a part of the national dialogue.

Religion (I'm a UU) is a personal and private matter.

[FrodosPet]

64. In practical terms, what exactly does that entail?

"Religion is a personal and private matter"

When people have religious beliefs and free speech, they have the right to talk about their religion. And each of us has the right to independently judge the validity of of those beliefs, and to form our own opinions about a candidate based on their beliefs.

That said, in the practical reality that elected politics IS a popularity contest. It is a really shitty idea to alienate a large and important segment of the Democratic Party base by telling them that people who share their beliefs should not be in office.

[JustAnotherGen]

66. Oh I know

I'm a black woman by the way - raised in the Baptist church. But we are a bit more advanced (especially Gen X black women and younger) than you might like to believe.

When push comes to shove - I'll take being paid a solid dollar over praying in school any day - thank you very much. You ought to head over to lipstick alley - that's where you'll find a solid block of us discussing these issues. God is one thing - having a shot at making a buck and getting paid our worth is far more valuable and will get black women much farther in America than prayer will.

It's like that song of old - Fishing for Religion.

And any young black woman I mentor - any woman for that matter - I'll always say it's only money but it's your money honey. We are a lot smart than the DNC thinks we are. Snort. Chuckle. Snort.

It just drives me nuts that folks thing black women are a bunch of dumb fucks who can't think for ourselves.

That takes a lot of nerve.

[FrodosPet]

79. I don't believe in blankets. Generalizations never cover everyone.

As a group, I have a huge amount of respect for the black woman in America who is trying to to the right thing for their families and their community. And I wish, I hope, they can achieve peace, success, and personal fulfillment in a much more just and polite society.

I grew up in a mixed race city. Most of my jobs have been in mixed race situations - often with supervisors of color. I've went to school and worked with many women of color who were very bright and capable. They've faced and fought against all the additional bullshit that a racist society has thrown at them and came out with their heads high, earning the respect they deserve for their leadership.

My personal observation that religious faith is important in a large part of the African American community comes not from disrespect or ill will. Nor does it stem from a lack of exposure. It is the result of my friendships - talking and listening to people at work, reading their FB posts, surfing primarily AA opinion sites, etc.

[JustAnotherGen]

81. Thanks for the clarity

Perhaps it's my social group - friends, sisters, cousins, aunts etc. etc.


More and more atheists, agnostics, are filling my life - primarily among my black female social circle. It just doesn't work for black women anymore.

It's been used as a hammer to keep us down.

I think we shall shake hands and part ways here.

[FrodosPet]

82. Thank you for understanding!

I'm no "creationist". I firmly believe I am the result of supernova explosions billions of years ago, and not the hocus pocus of some dude named Jehovah or Allah or whatever a few thousand years ago.

What worries me is the rigidity and arrogance of people who don't seem to care about the opinions of others. While I think it is right to promote science over superstition, the attitude by some anti-religionists is one that is more likely to antagonize people, and perhaps harden their misconception, than it is to bring them understanding.

[steve2470]

2. do you have an example of a Democrat who doesn't accept evolution ?

Never heard of such a creature. He/she would probably belong better in the R party.

[opiate69]

73. Mark Pryor. D-Arkansas

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Arkansas/Mark_Pryor/Scandals/Bill_Mayer_Interview/

[steve2470]

76. thanks, just amazing nt

[KamaAina]

95. The D is for Derp.

[MADem]

3. If he/she was electable and reliably voted the way the leadership told him/her to vote, I would

not care if the candidate believed in the frigging tooth fairy. And I would not care if the tax-cutting, corporate-loving, warmongering GOP opponent was a Darwinista par excellence. I just don't vote for Republicans--they are mean, dreadful people with bad ideas.

[steve2470]

5. I guess I'd hold my nose and vote for this hypothetical candidate

I'd really wonder what else was going on. As long as that person didn't actively promote ID or whatever they call it these days, I guess I could tolerate him/her.

[JustAnotherGen]

7. My gut instinct

Would be that they are some sort of IndieTeaPublican plant.

[steve2470]

8. same here

No evolution = right wing = fundamentalist Christian = Republican/TeaParty wing

[MADem]

9. I pretty much agree with the people who say "There couldn't be a Dem so dumb..."

but we all know that there are some places in the country where people are kinda forced to say stupidass things they don't really believe. Hell, George H. W. Bush--a Republican, and his pro-choice wife, had to do an idiotic verbal tap dance in order to get Big George on the ticket with Reagan. It was insincere and no one believed him (she just zipped her lip and looked stern), but he had to say it to get elected.

I'm sure there are plenty of Dems who say pandering bullshit things to get elected too. So long as they advance the principles in the Democratic platform by way of their votes, I can live with that kind of faux stupidity.

[steve2470]

10. yes, for example Wendy Davis' position on guns

I cannot imagine a strong gun control candidate getting elected in Texas. So, she's for what she's for. I can live with that.

[MADem]

13. Jon Tester in Montana had to color outside the lines, too.

Ya gotta dance a bit with the one what brung ya...and he had a demanding date with his constituency.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/jon_tester.htm

If you have a good leader who knows how to count votes, if they know they don't have the votes anyway, OR if they have the votes and don't need the vote of a Senator who has to play to his own peanut gallery, they let them vote the "wrong" way because it doesn't matter anyway.

What's important is party discipline when it COUNTS. When every vote matters, that's when these guys have to play the Profiles in Courage roles.

[steve2470]

16. yep I agree

In a highly diverse country like ours, there is absolutely NO way to get all Democrats on the same page 100% of the time. Impossible.

[SidDithers]

38. If the Democrat had be that crazy to get elected in that riding...

could you imagine how crazy the Republican in the same riding would be?

No way, now how, would the Democratic candidate be more anti-science than the Republican running in the same district.

Sid

[MADem]

41. Fair point, that!!!! nt

[whatchamacallit]

65. Wow, this typifies the corrupt thinking of party loyalists

Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2014, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

That you'd embrace the bad ideas of a creationist with a (D) over the good ideas of candidates of any other stripe, speaks volumes.

[MADem]

67. No it doesn't.

Read Robert Caro's books on LBJ. You don't have to pay for them, you can find them in your library. They will advance your understanding of the sausage-making process enormously.

You apparently are operating under a "Mister Smith Goes to Washington" vision of politics.

It's not that. It's "Master of the Senate."

If the D votes the way the leader tells him or her, he or she is advancing the party platform. You aren't going to elect a Paul Wellstone in TX or MT, no matter how hard you try. Tip O'Neill didn't say "All politics is local" on a whim--it's a fact. If the local population subscribes to voodoo, then the candidate had better find something nice to say about that, or he/she will not be elected. That IS how it works. These legislators aren't representing YOU--they're representing the voters in THEIR states and districts.

If you cannot see that, you are not being pragmatic, and you'll never have a majority.

Again--read Caro. You won't be able to put his stuff down, and you will understand how the system actually works.

[whatchamacallit]

69. A majority of what? Creationists?

The thing political junkies don't understand is it's about way more than winning.

[MADem]

70. This is a website for people who are political junkies, who CARE about winning.

I am not in the Happy Loser Club. Eight years with Dumbya aged me twenty years.

If that's your bag, knock yourself out. Don't expect me to subscribe to your philosophies.

You can't make change unless you're in charge. To the victor go the spoils. With party discipline, all things are possible.

Ask LBJ's ghost how the Civil Rights Act came to pass--it wasn't through "pretty please-ing" and asking nicely. It came down to arm twisting, bullying and threats.

But I'm glad he got that done. That was a BIG win, and it was ALL about winning-- even if you can't appreciate it.

[whatchamacallit]

71. Take off your rose-colored glasses

Some things haven't changed all that much since W, due in large part to partisan acceptance of the previously unacceptable. Go on and "win" this world right into the toilet.

[MADem]

72. I think you're the one with the spectacles. Read Caro.

"The previously unacceptable" is a chimera--just because it wasn't featured on a twenty four hour news cycle didn't mean it never happened prior to the wee cowboy.

Some of the things that happened in the second half of the last century, particularly with regard to campaign finance, would curl your hair. And it was just as bad, even worse, before that.

Warren G. Harding, for example, was hardly an example of Presidential rectitude.

[Squinch]

4. Democrats are sometimes dumb. But not that dumb.

[GOLGO 13]

6. Doesn't pass the sniff test

We have standards after all.

[el_bryanto]

11. I'd look at the context of the comments

I wouldn't expect a candidate in a conservative district to speak exactly the same way on this issue as one in a safer district. If he or she said something like "I think that evolution is something people of good will can have different opinions on." for example, I wouldn't be happy but I wouldn't be too upset either.

Bryant

[MohRokTah]

12. Only as a nose pincher in a general election.

Last edited Wed Jul 30, 2014, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

And only if said Dem actually stood a chance of winning.

[newfie11]

14. No

Someone that doesn't accept science is off my voting list.

[conservaphobe]

15. No. nt

[RKP5637]

17. I would look deeper into what they are all about, as this indicates some serious conceptualization

difficulties ... I think one would find overlap into other areas they well might not like to vote for.

[HereSince1628]

54. I'm pretty sure religion -could- co-exist with belief in evolution.

Religion doesn't absolutely require a supernatural creator, religions could be limited to systems of cultural beliefs that guide ethics, transitional rituals with life events, and various forms of support that tend to the various challenges of life.

Religions that use a God Of The Gaps to fill in a missing understanding about the empirical world are pretty much always at risk of a collision course with gap ending scientific understanding. But all such religions don't have scriptures or mythic traditions that are deemed literal and unchangeable words of god.

Moreover, adherents of religion may have personal beliefs and the capacity to make non-fundamentalist accomodation that facilitate belief in a creator and evolution. The basic positions are that evolution doesn't conflict with the allegorical roots of creation, that god did it but used evolution, and that god did it and did it in a way that looks just like evolution

I've known many PhD's in various biological fields that belonged to and were active in Christian denominations, at least 3 of whom were leaders in their congregations. Some found an apologist' position in between, and some accepted the value of membership in a religious congregation as sufficient to make membership worth more than making evolution a deal breaker.

[HereSince1628]

60. sorry, posted this in the wrong place

[ieoeja]

55. As a devout Atheist, I disagree.

Evolution and religion can co-exist just as much as Gravity and religion can co-exist.

The Big Bang theory was originally backed by the Catholic Church against the opposition of most scientists. The Church said it explained the mechanism God used to create the universe. Most scientists at the time belief the universe had always been there. Einstein famously said the Jesuit priest/professor who originated the Big Bang theory was a great at math, but a lousy scientist.

Wasn't until Hubbel proved the universe was expanding that the Big Bang theory took hold.

In a similar fashion Evolution could explain the mechanism that God used to create life. Most religious people outside the United States take that view.

[demwing]

19. If that was my choice, yes./nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

20. Write in or third party

would probably be my vote in such a case.

We don't need those kind of idiots destroying the Party's image, even if it means losing a seat in the short term.

We're already facing potentially record low voter turnout in 2014 because people are giving up on politics in droves as a result of Democrats acting like Republicans in issues from economics to foreign adventurism, fossil fuels to domestic surveillance.

We need good Democratic candidates to inspire voter turnout. Candidates who will actually fight against the things Republicans like, not try to outdo them. At a time when anthropogenic climate change is killing off everything from starfish to polar bears, fish stocks are plummeting coastlines are rising, we have a Democratic President who has facilitated a vast increase in the production of fossil fuels in the lands and waters our country controls, and approved the use of technology that will devastate marine life off our east coast to try to find even more fossil fuels.

We don't need more candidates who are working to push us into the next extinction event.

[NRaleighLiberal]

21. We can't be one issue voters at times like this - esp. with so many being left behind...

As a scientist, it would drive me nuts...but if said person believed in climate change and was willing to fight for the middle class, supported unions, and was all for getting us out of foreign quagmires - yes.

I don't care what the republican believed - I could never, ever vote for a republican in any election - ever.

[Peacetrain]

22. What Democrat is this?

But to answer your question.. a persons personal religious beliefs or non beliefs are their own and as long as they do not impact our mission as Democrats.. would make no difference to me. I would vote for an Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, etc etc etc in a heartbeat (and I am a devout Christian) if he or she held the same political goals I did, and was willing to work in the trenches to accomplish them.

[Codeine]

23. I can't vote for a moron, regardless of party.

People who don't accept the reality of evolution are just that; morons.

[yourout]

24. Same here.....I can't stomach stupid.

[NightWatcher]

25. I'd like the choice to vote for one (or a lot) who don't believe in boogiemen or Sky Cake

[CBGLuthier]

26. A lot would depend upon whether or not the opponent shared his delusion

If the opponent shared this delusion then may as well vote for the democrat but if not it sure would be hard in which case I would not vote for either of them.

[get the red out]

27. No

I would sit that race out.

[Orsino]

28. A Dem who walks upright, with opposable thumbs, and who speaks?

That Dem has already accepted evolution, and is taking advantage of it.

I'd need to see what other lies and/or delusions come out of his/her mouth, just in case they could possibly be worse than those of a Republican opponent.

[Tetris_Iguana]

29. As long as they aren't a fundie

I don't see why not.

[Iron Man]

30. Oh gods no.

There's so much evidence supporting evolution that one cannot deny it without being a complete moron.

[ann---]

31. No

just as I couldn't vote for a Democrat who supported Israel.

[Swede Atlanta]

32. No.....

[Thinkingabout]

33. I try not to vote for a candidate on a single issue. The issues our candidates should be

Concerned with is not evolution, this is an argument which can occur other places. I am more interested in getting the economy going, getting the employment up and running, getting decent wages for the workers. I believe in a woman's choice, in health care for all, equality, anti-violence and assisting those who can not help themselves. Evolution is not an issue with me.

[TBF]

34. What kind of a debate are you proposing to spark?

Honestly.

[H2O Man]

35. Interesting.

Recommended.

I'm more concerned with "fracking" and protecting the environment, than a person's religious views. Yet if their interpretation of mythology was glaringly wrong, I'd be concerned. Still, a person who takes a mythological story in literally terms might believe that human beings are responsible for protecting and caring for the garden.

[Eleanors38]

44. In fact a sizeable segment of fundies DO believe we

are stewards of the earth, and that strong measures are needed to protect it. If someone thinks along way-out religious lines, but has a track record of liberal/progressive causes & votes, I'll vote for that person.

[Xithras]

59. True. I've met a number of very religious environmentalists.

Their reasoning is usually something along the lines of:

1) God doesn't make mistakes.
2) God created the Earth and every life form on it.
3) Mankind is destroying God's work.
4) If God doesn't make mistakes, and God intended all this life to be on the Earth, then destroying the environment and that life runs counter to God's will.
5. Opposing God's will is a mortal sin.

While I may not agree with their motivations, I've always respected the consistency in their belief systems. They prove that not all Christians are hypocrites.

Or, as one once told me, "When Adam and Eve needed a place to live, God built them a garden...not a tract home with a manicured lawn."

[Eleanors38]

86. Some of these "green fundies" have become a pain

in the ass to the very corporate culture of their preachers.

[raouldukelives]

61. +1 I figured somebody would echo my sentiments on this thread. nt

[dawg]

36. Depends on who he or she was running against.

In my experience, the Republican candidate is *always* crazier and third party candidates don't have enough support to be viable.

[SidDithers]

37. No...

a politician who is a young-earth creationist isn't smart enough to have responsibility for life-changing decisions that could affect thousands of people.

Sid

[Coventina]

39. The question would be, would their belief affect their policy choices?

That would be the important part for me.

[on point]

40. No. Brings into question their education, wisdom, connection to reality

[Xyzse]

42. I think I may just vote for the Independent in that case.

I am an Independent any way.

Still, if that were the case, I tend to look who might hurt the country less. Generally it is the Democrat, but if the Republican makes a great case, I might be inclined to vote for them.

That is hypothetical by the way. Next off, I will also have to consider the balance of power in between Congress, Senate and the Presidency.

No matter what, if there is a huge chance that any of those 3 areas would be majority Republican, I will probably have to vote Democrat.

[mainer]

43. Depends. Is his opponent a Tea Partier who likewise doesn't believe in it?

If so, then I'd vote for the Dem.

But if he's up against a moderate Republican who believes in evolution, I'd go with the Republican.

[betterdemsonly]

45. I could vote for an old earth creationist, but not a young earth creationist

"Intelligent designers" appear to be cagey, and often promote yec, so I would avoid them too. I could definitely vote for an evolutionary creationists, the bible is metaphor, since it is the view I hold.

[jamzrockz]

46. Love all the no answers

But ask the question again if they vote for someone who believes in the fiction called the bible and they would say yes. Yes, its a lesser level of stupid but it is still stupid.

[Orsino]

68. I think we're all conditioned to accept a certain level of stupid. n/t

[LanternWaste]

78. Or the fiction of national borders.

"who believes in the fiction called the bible..."

Or the fiction of national borders. Or economics. Or philosophy. All imaginary constructs we've constructed, and predicate choices both large and small on every day. However, I do realize the bias that compels many of us to hold those imaginary constructs we entertain to a much lower standard than one we criticize...

Lesser stupid, but still stupid.

[Silent3]

92. There's a difference between artificial cultural constructs and fiction

Fiction is an artificial cultural construct, but not artificial cultural constructs are fiction.

The differing consequences of what happens when you cross a border, when you live on one side of a border or another, when you try to change a border in the face of opposition to that change -- those consequences are quite real. That's all the reality a border needs to have. The reality of a border isn't based on claims that they are fundamentally designed into the structure of the planet (even if some borders are based on natural features), that they are somehow inherent features existing beyond human cultural conventions and political agreements.

[dilby]

98. Why does it matter?

I care about where they stand on the issues that matter, how old the earth is or whether we were created by God or evolution are irrelevant. When was the last time they argued in the Senate on the age of the earth or how man came about?

[lunasun]

47. Need additional info before deciding but doubtful

[LeftishBrit]

48. I could vote for people with any number of weird personal beliefs

My sticking point would be if they tried to impose such beliefs on others, or for example to encourage the teaching of creationism in school science lessons.

Few politicians in the mainstream parties of the UK would explicitly admit to Young Earth Creationism; the exceptions are some of the Paisleyites of Northern Ireland.

If a Labour politician was a creationist but had reasonable votes on everything else, would I still vote for them over a typical Tory? Yes, probably. Not very likely to happen, however.

[Logical]

50. NO NO NO. because it means they have no logic and lower intelligence IMO! nt

[Avalux]

51. My initial response is HELL NO. BUT -

I don't vote based on one issue. It would depend on the opponent, and if overall, the Dem candidate who doesn't accept evolution is the better choice, then I'd vote for that person. Hopefully the primary process would take care of such a person, and the party as a whole.

[Shrike47]

52. Pretty much what Avalux said. Maybe, under some circumstances.

[ieoeja]

53. No. n/t

[L0oniX]

56. NO! I don't vote for stupid. The Dem party must have better standards for candidates.

[Xithras]

57. I'm with you. It would depend on the Republican.

Generally speaking, I'd take an evolution (science) accepting Republican over a Creationist Democrat in an election. I don't vote for religious fundies, no matter WHAT their religion, or WHAT their party.

If it were a Senate deciding race, I might just have to go on vacation to some other country during election week, because I don't think I could compromise on it and I'd need a good excuse not to vote. When you're talking about Bible thumping creationists, there is no "holding your nose". To me, the only difference between a "Creationist Democrat" and a "KKK member Democrat" is the degree of their religious fervor, and there are some things that can't be compromised on.

I also can't imagine that a genuine creationist would support gay rights, environmental policy reform, or any of my other trigger issues anyway. I'm certainly not going to vote for someone who actually OPPOSES the Democratic platform and core progressive ideals simply because they choose to call themselves a Democrat.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Economically, I have more in common with William Jennings Bryan

... than pretty much any of the names that have been discussed as 2016 candidates.

I'm stuck voting for someone who believes in the sky god anyway so we're worrying about degrees of delusion.

[jamzrockz]

80. Exactly

and the degree is some little that sometimes they overlap. I ask my self how many votes in congress would not believing in evolution cause one to pick the wrong side? my guess is its between 2 to 0 and the ones that believing in religion would cause one to pick the wrong side and you are looking at abortion, support for Israel, prohibition laws which tend to have ties with following the morality of the bible. I cant think of more at the moment but belief in god has a bigger cost on society than just belief in creationism.

[jeff47]

63. The time to fix it is in the primary.

Vote against them in the primary. If they win the primary, hold nose and vote for them in the general. Then vote against them in the next primary.

Repeat as necessary.

[treestar]

74. Depends on the rest of the issues

A failure to think evolution is true wouldn't mean the person would vote somehow to hurt some other issue.

[alarimer]

75. No, because of other likely positions they will take along with that.

A person who doesn't "believe" (it's not a question of belief, but of evidence) in evolution is likely to hold other, more serious retrograde positions. If they don't believe in the overwhelming evidence of evolution, they probably also don't believe the overwhelming evidence of climate change or of vaccine safety. He or she would be particularly bad at evaluating evidence for all kinds of things, including crime and punishment, environmental protection and conservation, women's rights and human rights in general.

Many (but not all) anti-science beliefs go along with a conservative worldview.

[villager]

77. "Modern age" is the key. A William Jennings Bryan vote, in that era, to stand up to banks

...would be a fairly easy one to cast, contemporaneously.

Now get me into that time machine!

[pnwmom]

83. If the Rethug thought the same thing, I'd vote for the Dem, because on many other issues,

the Dem would have a better position.

[sakabatou]

84. No.

[Sheepshank]

85. I can't imagine that a candidate like that would make it through the Primaries.

Voting for one DEM over another DEM, would put that person in the losing slot IMHO.

However, if they made it through the Primary, and they were up against a GOP? Likley the DEM would get my vote since I try not to be a single issue voter..... and the GOP have a whole host of shit I can't abide.

[joeybee12]

87. NO...however, in 2000, Al Gore made a weasely comment about how

some people believe in evolution, some take the biblical view, both are valid...it was a both sides of his mouth thing that really irritated me, but I ignored it and campaigned for him and was thrilled when he was elected President...alas, he was never inaugurated.

[Silent3]

88. As long as there were no major policy ramifications that followed from that craziness...

...so this candidate would be voting the way I'd hope he/she would vote much more than than the Republican would, sure I'd vote for that Democrat. I might find it a bit distasteful, but I'd do it.

[Marrah_G]

89. No

[rug]

90. Is s/he for single payer?

[DiverDave]

93. NOPE

Any other dumb questions?

[zappaman]

94. No. n/t

[KamaAina]

96. I'm assuming the repuke doesn't, either

so what else are you gonna do?

[Aerows]

97. Eh, it depends on

how loony their opponent is. I live in Mississippi, so loony vs. not as loony is frequently the only choice available.