The GOP eats its own

[Al B. Sure!]

Clinton barely did (it was also common knowledge at the time that Hillary was more religious than Bill).

(Of course, up until Jimmy Carter most Presidents weren't so vocal about their faith - Carter did it, I suspect, to show how he was a moral man in contrast to Nixon, who resigned 3 years earlier)

For some reason, Penn Jillette says you're wrong. Clinton was the most vocally religious president:

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeeeeah, I'm not really going to take Jilette's word on it.

[Elok]

Do you know what is asinine? You denying that race is a major factor behind most GOP positions. Oh, and, yes, like most people I started out with the position that race was no longer a big deal then I spent time with right wing conservatives, went to forums full of right wing conservatives, and the honest ones will explicitly say race is their big motivation. That's why they're always talking about cutting welfare, eliminating food stamps, talking about "takers", they truly believe it is mostly blacks and other nonwhites who mostly use those services and thus feel non-white "takers" are some how stealing from them. You're either blind, in denial, or a fool not to see this. Look at any right wing forum on the net, listen to any GOP debate, or better yet just spend time with some tea baggers and race is always bubbling just under the surface. WTF do you think they're so opposed to immigration reform? It's because they don't want more brown people in the country. Notice how the GOP ALWAYS puts in their platform that they want to repeal the voting rights act? Or how they are always trying to prevent minorities from voting?

Yes, one of us is being asinine here, but, that would be you with your denials about the racial motivations of the far right.

1. Black people pretty consistently vote Dem. Of course the GOP doesn't want them voting--doesn't mean it's personal.
2. I like how your insights on the GOP are apparently drawn exclusively from internet forums. Based on my analysis of Poly, the world is inhabited almost solely by white males, many of them gay, half of them atheists, most of them crazy . . .

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeeeeah, I'm not really going to take Jilette's word on it.

Michael Novak and E.J. Dionne of the Brookings Institute also claim these things.

Why should we take Imran Siddiqui's word for it?

[Elok]

Who gives a damn? The man's been out of office for almost fifteen years, and he's not coming back.

[Guynemer]

the world is inhabited almost solely by white males, many of them gay, half of them atheists, most of them crazy . . .

3 out of 5 ain't bad.

[Dinner]

1. Black people pretty consistently vote Dem. Of course the GOP doesn't want them voting--doesn't mean it's personal.
2. I like how your insights on the GOP are apparently drawn exclusively from internet forums. Based on my analysis of Poly, the world is inhabited almost solely by white males, many of them gay, half of them atheists, most of them crazy . . .

This is one of those nice chicken or the egg type situations. Yes, blacks do not vote for Republicans (well routinely 90% of blacks don't vote for Republicans) but that is mainly due to the long, long, long history of right wing conservative opposition to blacks having equal rights. So now Republicans are doing the same old voter suppression techniques which they've been using continuously for the last 60 years but now you're claiming race is only incidental. Color me surprised especially since its all exactly the same thing wrt voter supression only now they're claiming a different justification for doing the exact same thing they've always done. I don't believe them, most blacks don't believe them, I'd even go so far as saying most intelligent and informed people don't believe them.

[Elok]

3 out of 5 ain't bad.

Four. I grant that you're probably not gay.

[C0ckney]

3. Gay marriage is basically a done deal at this point. That galvanized opposition to traditional Xian views on sexuality, together with Xianity itself. The outrage will die down some--some denominations may cave and grow gay-tolerant, others will hold tight and be marginalized for a while until the fickle public moves on--and there will be a different fight to mobilize people looking for an idealistic clash. What, I don't know. Transgender rights, possibly, but basically all other aspects of Christian sexual and social morality have been eroded away. There's just not much left to fight over.

i broadly agree with this. i think though that this constant erosion of christian social and moral values must lead to the decline of the religion itself. see below for more details...

4. "New Atheism" of the Dawkins type seems self-limiting; if you're defined mainly by negation, once there's a big enough group of you, the act of negation becomes increasingly silly and pointless. Apathetic atheism has more staying power, but I think for many people it still depends on having a church around to despise, or specific aspects of that church. New religious systems have the appeal to draw the curious in, and people will always be curious. Possibly the beliefs of the future will be very different from what we've got now, but seriously, religion's been around since the dawn of civilization, if not before.

it's certainly true that religion has been around since well before the dawn of civilisation, however i think we're talking about slightly different things here. in the UK and brasil (i will limit myself to the two countries i know best) the number of declared atheists has grown, but what is a more striking change is the increase in the numbers who are nominally religious, that is people who profess some vague, or even sincere, belief in god, who call themselves christian, and even group themselves in some denomination or other, but who in fact do not follow any observances, nor take part in any religious activity. a group of people who have little to no contact (in a religious context) with other members of their denomination and less still with its priests/preachers, and whose social, political and moral views and conduct are therefore little influenced by the same.

or to put it another way, there is an increasingly large group of people who believe in god, but that are not religious, if that makes any sense. this means that because their nominal religion has so little influence on them, their actions in society are necessarily secular and thus the role of religion and its social power declines.

5. Perhaps most importantly, we aren't Europe. We're the most individualistic society on Earth, even more than Europe, and we're spread out and mobile where you're settled and compact. Churches served as a buffer to that for a long time--among other things, religion functions as an anchoring point for communities. Traditional American community is declining; we're moving farther and faster than ever. You simply can't build lasting communities around irreligion by itself; the Sunday Assembly (or whatever it's called) is only the latest of many attempts. When people want a glue to bind them, what will they use, if not religion?

there's a lot to say about this, but i will try to be as brief as possible. firstly, i don't really agree with your characterisation here; europeans move around quite a lot, although obviously most cities, towns and villages are longer established than in the US. secondly, i think this is something of a false dichotomy, there are many possible glues for a community, too many to even begin to list. religion, or more accurately a church (synagogue, mosque etc.), is certainly one, and this has been the case historically, although even here, it is not necessarily the case that the religious element is essential. something like carnival in brasil has religious roots, yet having shed almost all of its religious aspects, it still retains its force as a social glue.

indeed the nature of community itself is changing. with the internet, we can talk to people thousands of miles away, yet we are less likely to know our neighbours and participate in our communities. the same forces, mass communication, mass transport and mass culture act upon all of us, and will have similar effects. although of course, as they act upon different pre-existing contexts, the results will not be identical in every place.

I do think much of religion is going to leave the political sphere for a while. But that, too, tends to encourage the growth of actual belief. Political entanglements lead to corruption, which leads to disillusionment and disgust. As for the two-party system, it's hard to say. At present, pure greed-is-good conservatism isn't super-popular, but Bible-thumping is doing worse. Possibly some social conservatives will rediscover a taste for the social gospel and invent a new subspecies of Democrat? Who knows? The existing alliance is only about as old as I am. New alliances are always possible.

indeed. one of the most interesting things about american christianity (and in this respect i think it is far more resilient than european christianity), despite often being characterised as a conservative force, is its almost infinite capacity for change and adaptation to new social, economic and political contexts.

my view about europe, and to a lesser extent, south america, is not so much that a militant atheism will oust christianity, but rather that it has become and is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the societies in which it operates.

[dannubis]

my view about europe, and to a lesser extent, south america, is not so much that a militant atheism will oust christianity, but rather that it has become and is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the societies in which it operates.

one can only hope.

[Elok]

I think this may be part of a broader boom-bust cycle. We have a good number of people who are nominally religious, but take it so unseriously it hardly matters--my wife is irked by "congenital Catholics" who ignore the Church until it's time to baptize/confirm the next kid. As religion becomes mainstream, prosaic, and reconciled to the broader culture, it becomes at once boring and scandalous. Boring, because it's the same damn thing everyone and his grandpa has done since forever, but scandalous, because in accommodating itself to society it always sacrifices some of its principles.

But once it's become utterly safe and cynical, the second form of religion sweeps in: the one that makes huge demands and huge promises, that criticizes kings and despises the world. That kind of religion will always have appeal, while it lasts. It's the religion of tent revivals, uncorrupted monasteries, Martin Luther, John the Baptist and Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire. But apathy will always settle in again, leading to corruption and rot and discontent--until the next cleansing explosion. That's what the Great Awakenings were about, IIUC. Same thing for the Evangelical movement.

I don't know any more about Europe than you know about the U.S., so perhaps I shouldn't speculate. I just get the impression that you guys, in general, have a more "nailed-down" culture than we do. Also, community is about far more than communication. I can talk with you guys plenty, but if I need a favor in real space, I'm too far away for most of you to do much help. You don't watch my kids for me in emergencies, we don't meet regularly over dinner, we're not united by physical proximity. And modern methods of communication are increasingly fragmentary and evanescent. I don't think they satisfy the same need for belonging. But things are changing too fast to know for sure what will happen.

[The Mad Monk]

We meet over dinner all the time!

At least, I'm having dinner.

[Sava]

I just made a fruit smoothie and am eating strawberry frosted mini wheats

dinner
(not to be confused with Oerdin)

[Hauldren Collider]

Who gives a damn? The man's been out of office for almost fifteen years, and he's not coming back.

Is that what you think?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Who gives a damn? The man's been out of office for almost fifteen years, and he's not coming back.

I think we were arguing over whether libruls are getting more religious or something.