How is it like that?[/quote]Cultures and societies are rich in variety. Different strains aggregate or are enacted in different times and places. You seem to be looking for a numerical majority, or preponderance of power, and assuming consistency in all areas of an individual’s life. Neither of the first two are necessary to explain influence in the realm of popular belief, and people aren’t that consistent (the point of Zappa’s ditty). To answer your question, I think you’re looking through the wrong lenses, in the wrong places.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]I can account for this without reference to the Religious Right, since the morality codes to which network broadcasters are subject are hardly in keeping with the code of the Religious Right:
This restriction is entirely in keeping with what modern psychology recommends regarding the exposure of children to indecent material.[/quote]Sidesteps the issue of determining what constitutes ‘indecent material’.
I think we were talking about different sets of numbers anyway. But it seems there’s a significant factor which may have a lot less to do with the Religious Right, and a lot more to do with teacher training.
[quote=“Training teachers to take on the creationism/evolution battle”]In a recent issue of Science, Berkman and Plutzer focus much of their article on that 60 percent of cautious teachers who, for one reason or the other, fail to fully support evolution.
The authors propose that it is possible to persuade those timid teachers to become advocates of evolution, as the teachers do not exhibit strong conservative markers like believing that the universe is only 10,000 years old. Berkman and Plutzer suggest that the main cause of the problem is that these teachers lack confidence in their grasp of evolutionary biology.
Many of these teachers lack the educational expertise to defend evolution, so they resort to dodging the creationism vs. evolution “controversy” altogether.[/quote]
Apparently, among this group only 7% consider themselves “exceptional teachers”, so there’s a lack of confidence issue, combined with a lack of sufficient understanding of the subject, which contributes to them being ineffective teachers on this subject.
I’m not assuming any such consistency; I’ve already noted in other discussions that a significant proportion of Americans are overwhelmingly liberal in their personal beliefs, but still vote Republican at the polls. I’m simply questioning the idea that a specific 15% of the voting population is influential on at least 40% of the rest. If this was true, I’m sure we’d see some evidence for it.
When you can show me that this is an issue the government leaves up to the Religious Right, let me know.
[quote=“Fortigurn”] I’m simply questioning the idea that a specific 15% of the voting population is influential on at least 40% of the rest. If this was true, I’m sure we’d see some evidence for it.[/quote]Phrased in that way, it’s a long-settled matter of political science. In one instance, they’re called swing voters. You ought to be looking for a specific 15% of the population that’s particularly influential on the culture.
The existence of swing voters isn’t in question.This is moving to a different subject.
I am looking for a specific 15% of the population that’s particularly influential on the culture. When you have some evidence which identifies that group, let me know. It certainly isn’t the 17th century Puritans, is it?
That’s it? That does not constitute any evidence whatsoever for the claim made.
The existence of swing voters isn’t in question.This is moving to a different subject.[/quote]I know. But you wrote:
[quote=“Fortigurn”] I’m simply questioning the idea that a specific 15% of the voting population is influential on at least 40% of the rest.[/quote]I was hoping to refocus your attention.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
That’s it? That does not constitute any evidence whatsoever for the claim made.[/quote]
Which is why it’s given as a symbolic example. If you care to chase it down a bit, have a look into who constituted Ashcroft’s constituency, or where Monica Goodling came from. There’s a straight, clear line from your 15% to political power and prestige under W’s administration.
I think it’s not so much not knowing about it, but lack of confidence articulating it. It’s one of the fastest moving fields in biology, and theories within the field have been rising and falling like dominoes over the last 20 years in particular. This does make it difficult to keep up with.
Changing the subject isn’t going to refocus my attention on the subject under discussion.
Symbolic indeed. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any policy decisions here. You’re telling me that a pair of curtains in an office proves that 15% of the US voting public gets to dictate to the FCC? This is what it always comes down to, both with the Christian Right screaming about an ‘atheist invasion’ in politics, and their atheist counterparts screaming about living under the oppressive boot of a religious dictatorship; neither has any real evidence for their claims, and when pressed can only contribute handwringing, meaningful looks, and a few non-issues like this. It’s utterly pathetic. They can attack each other by all means, but they should at least be honest about it.
I’ve seen figures of higher than 15% - ones I’ve seen are more in the range of 23% to 27%. In any case, one reason they have such influence is because without the support of that small group the Republican Party would be unable to win elections. So the GOP pander to them and advance legislation that pleases them.
They are also extremely well funded, and as such are able to get their messages out effectively.
Evidence of their influence, beyond Prop. 8, include other instances in which gay marriage rights have been won then taken away (e.g. Maine), the growing power of the anti-abortion movement, and any instance of creationism being allowed to be taught in schools. Don’t forget the “moment of silence” gambit in schools as a way to introduce prayer into public schools. Oh, and the disinformation campaign sowing doubts that the Constitution has the separation of church and state enshrined in it. All of these are issues championed by the religious right, which, if the RR didn’t exist, wouldn’t make any traction.
Fortigurn:
Who’s John Ashcroft?
Who is Monica Goodling?
Why were they placed in positions of power?
What were the policy implications of their hirings and promotions?
Answer those questions and you may find some satisfaction regarding the influence of a mere 15%. If you can’t be bothered, look into the influence of that 15%, not in general elections, but Republican primaries. Whether or not you agree with their views, you shouldn’t dismiss their influence.
Just an aside – I know I cited it, but that “15%” should be taken as written in stone. The source was weak, and there may be better measures out there.
Yet overall, they fail to stem the marching tide of secularism.
But as we’ve seen, when the rubber hits the road these causes fail spectacularly in the courts; public prayer in public schools, Bible studies in public schools, teaching creationism in public schools, suppressing evolution in public schools, this is a litany of successive legal defeats for the Christian Right. The very issue of the separation of church and state has repeatedly been debated and repeatedly decided against the view of the Christian Right. So who’s really holding the whip hand here?
And as I’ve mentioned before, if you are going to give people the vote then stop complaining when they exercise their political franchise. If they’re attempting to influence the political decision making process illicitly, then by all means complain and punish them accordingly, but if they’re taking advantage of the very processes with which they’ve been provided specifically to exercise their personal influence on policy making, then it’s just bad luck if they disagree with you. That’s what democracy is all about. You can’t give people the vote and then complain that it’s not fair if they exercise it in ways you don’t like.
What I can see here is that the subject I raised in the initial post in this thread was responded to (predictably), by polarized participants of a cultural war, who leaped to assumptions which were predicated on their own personal opinions. However, when it comes to peer reviewed academic study of the question raised in the original post, the answer is very different. What is most notable as far as I’m concerned, is that no one who expressed a dogmatic opinion on this subject actually went out looking for the sober, reliable, third party scholarly commentary. They simply spoke from personal opinion, and launched ad hoc arguments in support of a position which they ‘just knew’ had to be right. This is another example of why scientific consensus fails to persuade.
This study: http://rifters.com/real/articles/Science_Public_Acceptance_of_Evolution.pdf compares the US with Europe and Japan. And, while it doesn’t include either Canada or Australia, it does deal with the relationship between biblical literalism and belief in evolution. It also looks at the politicization of evolution in the US by the republican party.
Yet overall, they fail to stem the marching tide of secularism.[/quote]
They managed to take away gay marriage rights in California and Maine, as stated. And despite all the court decisions saying they can’t teach creationism or introduce prayer into public schools, they do so anyway, and money and resources have to be continuously expended to stop them. “In God We Trust” remains on our currency, with the blessings of the Supreme Court. And abortion rights are, as we speak, being increasingly restricted around the US.
The US is a less secular place than I remember it being when I was a kid. There was no “office of faiuth-based initiatives” back then. Christian fundamentalists did not have a presence in the government then, and were relegated to lunatic fringe groups like the Moral Majority. Now, fundamentalists make up a significant proportion of the GOP. People who actually have legislative voting power in Congress and the Senate. We actually have senators like Jim DeMint proclaiming that more god is needed for freedom, but less government. Not some loony street-corner preacher, mind you. A US Senator. With power. People in power should not be talking like this!!
No, it’s because of confirmation bias. Dogmastists don’t see the need to verify what they ‘know’ is right. Why look for truth, when you have truthiness? As Colbert rightly said, ‘We’re not talking about truth, we’re talking about something that seems like truth – the truth we want to exist’.
No one is insisting on it. I am simply pointing out that the claims being made (with all dogmatism), are being made on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. When posed with the question in the OP, a number of people leaped directly into an answer without any research, verification, or validation procedure whatsoever. They did so immediately on the basis of their own personal dogma, on the basis of what they ‘think’ is true. When challenged, instead of attempting to investigate the subject and put their argument to the test of verification, they simply invented ad hoc arguments intended to support a case for which they still had no evidence.
I had no idea what the answer was, so I went looking in a place where I thought I might find a reliable answer. I did. This was not difficult. Anyone else could have done the same. But dogmatists see no reason to look for evidence; they already ‘know’ what is true, so what’s the point of testing their beliefs? Take Chris’ latest post for example. It’s full of personal opinion, unsubstantiated claims, at least one statement which has already been challenged with contrary evidence which Chris apparently still doesn’t acknowledge, and incredibly an old fashioned appeal to the ‘Good old days, when I was a boy’. This is truthiness. Now Chris is entirely free to to do this, but he shouldn’t represent it as factual. When I see posts like this (and there’s more than one such post in this thread), I know I can easily identify those people whose posts on certain subjects I can reliably ignore, and can probably ignore them on other subjects also, because they have no verification and validation process.
Significantly, it makes the same point about education as the study published in Nature, which I cited.
What a seriously assholish post, fort. Give it a rest. You’re making yourself look like an idiot. Most of the posters you are arguing with are American citizens who have been reading about this issue all their lives, interacting with the religious right at school and work and watching the way politicians fall over themselves to not say things to offend this small but influential lobby group. They may have a few blind spots but overall they are talking sense and you are not.
Insisting on “scholarly reports” and ignoring the intuitions and perceptions and experiences of actual US citizens is blind. Doing so with the condescension you exhibit in your last post is guaranteed to make people think you’re an argumentative crank who is best ignored.
You have successfully identified why, as the article to which I linked previously, scientific consensus fails to persuade. The American citizens with whom I have been arguing have presented no evidence for their case, and have ignored evidence to the contrary. The fact that they’ve been reading about this issue ‘all their lives’, and interacting with the religious right does not mean that they are a better source of information than a peer reviewed scholarly study by professionals with access to far more information than they do, and far better training to assess that information. If the American citizens here want to contest this study’s conclusions, they are welcome to do so by presenting their evidence and their case. Do you think that the study I cited (and which is supported by the study antarcticbeech cited), is wrong? Do you think they should have just consulted a few people here?
Look at what Chris wrote:
And despite all the court decisions saying they can’t teach creationism or introduce prayer into public schools, they do so anyway, and money and resources have to be continuously expended to stop them
And abortion rights are, as we speak, being increasingly restricted around the US
Does he have any evidence for this? Of course not. He just believes it to be true. I find this article of interest (and it’s only one of many on the subject).
These facts don’t seem to be raised too often in threads like this. Instead people try to tell me the exact opposite. When people try to tell me the exact opposite of what has been established through reliable information gathering and professional analysis, you’ll pardon me for telling them they don’t know what they’re talking about, regardless of how superior they believe their ‘experiences’ make them.
I couldn’t care less. I’m interested in truth, not truthiness. I try to avoid making statements which can’t be substantiated from reliable third party sources. This is no more a matter of condescension than if a rabid American Fundamentalist were here trying to argue that there is no evidence for evolution and that the US has always been a Christian nation united under one God; it would then be you appealing to the relevant scholarly literature and pointing out that their personal opinion and their years of experience living in the US and all the generations of God fearing Christians in their family mean absolutely nothing next to the actual facts.
I spend enough time battling Fundamentalist Christians online to recognize Fundamentalism when I see it, and I don’t believe there’s any reason why the same standards of evidence shouldn’t prevail across the board.
I’m glad you claim an interest in ‘truth’ rather than fact.
Unfortunately, I’ve not been blessed with an abundance of patience, and the best I can do to approach graciousness, here, is to make like a church and split.
This is what it always comes down to, both with the Christian Right screaming about an ‘atheist invasion’ in politics, and their atheist counterparts screaming about living under the oppressive boot of a religious dictatorship; neither has any real evidence for their claims, and when pressed can only contribute handwringing, meaningful looks, and a few non-issues like this. It’s utterly pathetic. They can attack each other by all means, but they should at least be honest about it.
