Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Religion in American politics
vinlyn
Colorado...for now Veteran
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/pew-survey-religion-118834.html?hp=rc3_4#.VXkkfUZ0d8E
Interesting, though brief, article about religion in American politics.
1
Comments
Thank God.
I think there are several factors involved in the general disassociation of this generation from religion in America. First, religion was co-opted by the right wing conservative party and is currently held hostage to ultra-conservative social issues like abortion and especially gay rights. Issues like social justice were ignored or derided as "liberal socialism".
Just as important, I think, is that this generation is not stupid. They see an example of what happens to a society when conservative religion is allowed to make the rules in the Muslim countries. They're smart enough to understand how similar our own nation would look, if ultraconservative Christians were allowed to also make the rules. They're already getting a taste of it with the Republican's continued war on women's choices and gay rights, all in the name of their religious rules.
That does not mean religion is going away anytime soon as a powerful force in politics. It doesn't really matter what the majority of people believe, because the majority of people won't vote.
@vinlyn -- A bit smugly-overstated, but still... interesting.
Once upon a time, Japanese television had a New Year's Eve tradition of visiting one Buddhist temple or another and perhaps interviewing the honcho there. And one year, I remember the roshi at some Zen Buddhist monastery being asked about the potential for communism to sweep down out of the north, invade Japan, and burn down all the Zen temples.
The guy really laughed:
"Oh yes!" he chortled. "Burn them all down! All of them!"
Others may think he was kidding or offering some Zen Buddhist razzle-dazzle. I took him at his word.
Just something to keep in mind -- the sense I get from the author's perspective is all "brands" of religion. All.
That reminds me, while in Korea I toured most of the big Zen temples. Some of them had been around since Buddhism was first introduced to Korea from Chinese missionaries even before the first Buddhist missionary reached Japan.
The temple location, that is, not the building. Each temple had one of those history signs in English for tourists, and each one had been burnt to the ground and rebuilt a dozen times or more over the centuries. See, China and Japan have taken turns invading and occupying Korea for a thousand years or so. Koreans have little love for either China or Japan because of this. And for some reason, the invaders would always burn the temples.
But new temples would eventually be built on top of the ashes, the monks would come back down out of their hiding places, and the Dharma would again be taught.
I, for one, have been checking the 'no religion' or 'not affiliated' box for a couple of decades. Doesn't mean I had/have no religious or spiritual beliefs, just that I echo the sentiment mentioned in the article, i.e. it's nobody's business what my personal beliefs are, and I'm not going to be pigeon-holed by the pollsters or census takers into any particular group.
English gentlemen sent the religious fanatics to the New World, good riddance to the lot of them!
And then we beat the britches off them in the American Revolution.
@vinlyn -- True enough. But you gotta admit they've still got it all over us when it comes to that accent.
There, there; we can all get along. We just need a keg of moonshine.
It seems odd to me that anyone in a "minority" religion would have disdain for people who left their homeland for freedom of religion...even if it didn't match "my" religion.
I wonder if any and every so-called religion doesn't rely in part -- great or small, subtle or gross -- on its disdain for someone or something else. Not 'mine,' of course -- 'mine' is different and, of course, better.
I don't know about 'disdain'. But certainly dissatisfaction. Isn't that what led Siddartha on His quest in the first place?
@walker -- I guess we could parse "disdain/dissatisfaction" over a lot of beer, but to the extent that "disdain" entails some measure of setting-aside or rejecting, I don't think it's inappropriate. Sneering may be a step too far, but ... oh well ... pass the pitcher.
As to Gautama's getting off the princely dime, I would have thought the "four sights" were first in line as motivators.
Ha! Reminds me of the young American girl in the supermarket in Denver who said to me "I love your accent....I wish I had an accent!"
Me: "You do"
Her: "No I don't"
Hmmmmmmmmm........
Sounds like good old fashioned tribalism to me. We humans evolved, and rightly so, to fear the appearance of a strange group cresting the yonder valley wall. They haven't come to sell Girl Scout cookies. And with the Abrahamic religions, you have scattered tribes squabbling over the limited resources in a desert, thus the war god Yahweh and his genocidal instructions for the Amalakites.
The oft-noted in-group/out-group attitude of Muslims, Christians and religious Jews is fed from the spring of good old fashioned tribalism, 'fear of the other' sublimated into 'kill the other'. Nowadays it is unfashionable to kill 'the other' for most Christians, though Zionist Jews and Muslims are still quite committed to it. So if you don't 'kill the other', you can certainly thrust your nose up in the air and mentally condemn them. It gives a person a more powerful, in control feeling than simply fearing them.
How un-Buddhist of me is it to feel limp with relief after reading this article?
I came of age in the 80's and 90's, so the Jerry Falwells and Focus on the Familys stuff was a part of the landscape, the unquestioned background. I didn't know that all this was fairly new on the scene. It just was. It was the backdrop for the stage on which we played. I suspect this is true for most people, in that we are so busy with our particular life issues that the backdrop can slowly but drastically change without our awareness, until we are insisting 'it's always been like this'.
Actually I know better than to go completely limp with relief. Bring on the next backdrop! We'll screw that one up too
while hopefully maintaining the barest lead so human progress continues forward.
In the meantime, I want to thank the Millenials for coming of age with a remarkable independence of spirit.
@Hamsaka -- May I be permitted a small moment of doubt? The first thought into my head was "suffering is an equal-opportunity employer" and "independence" is often a great cover for uncertainty.
Not being snarky. Just noodling.
Their independence may very well be an expression of insecurity, uncertainty. You betcha. I really like this generation, probably due to having adult kids in it. It's weird being on the other side of the generation gap. The things that are important to me, like tolerance and concern for the future of humanity and the world, seem to be coming to fruition in these kids.
@Hamsaka -- As the Irish are sometimes fond of saying, "From your mouth to God's ear!"
Every generation mentioned in this article is of voting age. If trend lines do indeed point to less religious influence, why does GOP success and influence not seem to be waning? Those non-religious millennials must find their way into the voting booth if the rosy scenario depicted here is to be realized.
Color me skeptical. I think the GOP men behind the curtain will simply and subtly shift away from Bible-thumping to tribal fear. The anti-Muslim sentiment for example... it is easy enough to gin up terror there without bringing one's personal religious scruples into the picture.
The trend I would like to read about is what does or doesn't motivate these millenials to vote. Do they care less about the extinction of the natural world than us old hippies? I fear the answer.
I think it is.
The truly red states are pretty much remaining truly red. The truly blue states are remaining pretty much truly blue. Because in both instances, the ratio of majority versus minority is fairly substantial.
The change is in the purple states where majorities are getting thinner and thinner. I've lived in 2. When I first moved to Virginia, the state was pretty much rock-solid Republican. Democrats could win in the Washington suburbs, but the rest of the state more than balanced off that vote, and pretty much anything state-wide went GOP. Then, things began to shift. In 1990 the state was stunned when Doug Wilder was elected governor; the first Black governor of the state that was once the heartland of the Confederacy; the first Black elected governor in the United States. He was a Democrat. And that was sort of the point where state-wide offices began to teeter, with slightly more and more likelihood that it would shift to Democrats.
Now I live in Colorado. The state was solidly Republican, but now is in that somewhat balanced mode. The state seemed to be going more and more Democrat until the Democrat governor and Democrat legislature pushed policies way too far to the left (for this state, including gun legislation) and while the Democrats held the governorship, they lost the legislature.
And that is a key problem. Mistakes in governing. Over-reach. Pushing too far, too fast. Both parties have done it. The Republicans so over-reached in 1964 when they nominated Barry Goldwater. The Democrats so over-reached in 1972 when they nominated George McGovern.
A party also needs to have smart candidates. It seems like it's radical Republicans who say all the dumb things. But in reality, Democrat candidates make just as many stupid moves (yes, some GOP comments about abortion in the last couple of GOP cycles have been so stupid; but pushing gun control in most western states is just as stupid...if you want to get elected or stay elected).
Political trends are rarely fast. Almost always slow.
@Hamsaka -- Passed along in email today, more on the Millennials with a little Zen flavoring.
McDonald's Application Form
That was fantastic!
@genkaku that was a great video LOL. The Millenials I know are very nonmaterialistic (I'm talking about my kids and their circle of friends). They love to garden and make their own stuff, they recycle automatically, they eat healthy, they drive cars they own free and clear (and bought for cash), they don't spend what they don't have. These are just the ones I know of, and they are 'early' Millenials born in the 80's, so just now having families and stuff. Oh yeah, my son is a stay at home Dad this summer, and 'knows' his daughter and what to do with her, what she needs just as much as her mother does. I just love 'em
And the kids really do say "We're f****!" with a smile. It's very Zen.
@vinlyn, I too have lived in Virginia (20 years) and now Colorado (10). To me, what's happened in CO this last election cycle is more a reflection of Democratic politicians trying to do the right thing - but losing political ground in the process (due to grassroots outrage or GOP influence - whatever). Frankly I'd like to see more of that: taking a stand rather than "testing the wind" and only proposing bills that can pass. The two gun control measures were pretty darn mild, as you know, and the Dems paid the price, losing the state Senate while keeping the House - but those laws are still in place today, and maybe lives have been saved because of them.
At any rate, yes, the trends in these two states are nicely upward over time - but for example in the Deep South, not so much. Flatlined. Not so different from when I grew up, except the schools are much, much worse.
I guess it depends on how you define the "right thing". If the majority of the people in the state don't want gun control, why should elected officials do exactly the opposite of what the electorate wants? (As an example).
Because 'they' know what's best...of course
I think Republicans are able to win elections partly because of the way they draw up their voting districts.
During the last election, Democrats won over a million votes more than Republicans, but because of the way districts are designed, the Republicans got 33 more members of the House of Representatives than the Democrats did." http://politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/nov/26/lloyd-doggett/democrats-outpolled-republicans-who-landed-33-seat/
That and fear is a more potent motivator than hope http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127101909.htm
They're also making efforts to rig elections by making more difficult for poor and minority voters to vote. http://www.npr.org/2012/08/15/158869947/do-voter-id-laws-prevent-fraud-or-dampen-turnout
That is exactly the right thing, democratically speaking. Can't really argue with it!
Even though I am a Democrat, I feel the need to point out a couple of things.
When Democrats have had power over redistricting, they have done the same thing about how they configure voting districts.
Certainly the expressed concern over voter fraud is so overdone considering the degree of fraud we actually find. However, the other day I went to Costco to renew my membership (I had let it lapse); I had to show a government photo ID. Every time I've gone to the hospital for surgery I had to show a government photo ID. Every once in a while when I go to my regular doctor they ask to see a government photo ID. Occasionally when I ask for a senior discount I am asked for a government photo ID. For younger people buying cigarettes or alcohol (and here in Colorado, pot) they are asked for a government issued photo ID. When I ask for the loan to buy my house I had to show a government photo ID. When I wanted a library card, I had to show a government ID with photo. When parents would come to the school to do business, there were times -- if it related to confidentiality -- that we would require a photo ID. I could go on and on. And yet, despite all the times we are asked for a photo ID, it seems to be an issue only when it comes to voting. I'm not clear why. Well, actually I do think I know why -- for the very reason politicians do many things -- to make something an issue.
@vinlyn -- You forgot to add ... "...while diverting attention from something that was a serious issue."
Gerrymandering could be eliminated if our countries would do what most democracies have done, reform the electoral system and adopt a form of proportional representation.
@vinlyn I agree about the ID. In Alberta, it's a pretty simple procedure to obtain a driver's license or photo ID for those who don't drive. Not that I was even asked for it last election, but I did have my voter information card that is sent in the mail to everyone on the voters list. But the poll clerk didn't even verify who I was!
All right, @walker -- 'fess up: How many times did you vote?
Just once. They do cross your name off the list when you vote. But they didn't know that it was me voting.
Come to think of it, I'm not really sure I voted either. Oh wait, wrong thread!
@vinlyn
So I couldn't find anything on how Democrats have gerrymandered in the past, maybe its just hard to find. But the argument sounds like kind of like "well they both do it so whatever" kind of argument and I'm not sure there is actual equivalency. I'd be fine to be shown that it has occurred if you care to find a source.
2) I'm on the side that says that the process of acquiring an ID to vote is a large enough burden on the poor, disabled and elderly (financial, transportation, time) that it would reduce the ability of some to cast a vote. Also, many of those things where we do show an ID allow for exceptions.
Bottom line, while all politicians bend the rules to suit them, Republicans have been doing it to greater and greater degree.
Lots of stuff out there if you Google "gerrymandering by democrats".
But even beyond that, ever hear of the dirty politics by "Boss Tweed"/Tammany Hall in NYC or the Mayor Daley "machine" in Chicago?
All I'm saying is that pointing the finger solely at Republicans as being dirty in politics is just not fair and balanced.
Googling that I did come across an article making the point that the reason Republicans hold more seats in the house in spite of the fact that more people voted for Democrats was only a small part based on gerrymandering and more about high density, small geographic areas are heavily Democratic and not easily broken up.
So back to the original point about how Republicans win elections despite demographics. It seems to have more to do with Democrats living more in dense cities and Republicans living more in spread out rural areas
Far too much focus is put on elections and candidates, and far too little is put on the political system that produces them. Whether it's women voting, civil rights, drug law reform, gay marriage, net neutrality, exposing mass surveillance, etc - those things have or are coming to pass because of what people are doing between elections. None of those things listed are the outcome of politicians, but rather a lot of people doing a lot of hard work over a really long time. We seem to be wrapped up in notions of "the right candidates" or romantic, sweeping revolution. It's not really that pretty - it's the little victories along the way that add up to bigger changes.
The last time I looked at the COngressional approval rating, it was hovering between 20-25%. Through the last few elections, that hasn't really changed.
A bit off topic but I think it's quite funny that Trump is running.
Jon Stewart picked the wrong year to leave, lmao
Every circus has to have a clown.
@ourself -- Poor bastard: He's got all the money in the world and the best he can think of is to run for president.