WSJ/NBC poll: Americans would rather have homosexual president than evangelical

[Underseer]

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/05...-presidential-candidate-to-an-evangelical-one

The public's attitudes about homosexuality is changing very rapidly right now. Finally, all those decades of bad arguments evangelicals made against homosexuals are now working against evangelicals instead of homosexuals.

Huzzah!

My apologies if this is a duplicate topic.

 

[Rhea]

I am so happy to hear this. There is hope for America.

 

[Underseer]

I am so happy to hear this. There is hope for America.

Indeed.

The public attitudes about homosexuality are changing so rapidly that now all of the Christian arguments against homosexuality are backfiring and convincing people that Christianity is evil.

 

[Nonsupernaturalist]

Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

True. If Michele Bachmann had managed to win, the US would have had a de facto gay Evangelical president.

 

[fromderinside]

True. If Michele Bachmann had managed to win, the US would have had a de facto gay Evangelical president.

I'm not saying she's a good dancer, but, I'd rather be inoculated for anything with your name as a base than be governed by that Bee-atsh.

 

[SimpleDon]

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/05...-presidential-candidate-to-an-evangelical-one

The public's attitudes about homosexuality is changing very rapidly right now. Finally, all those decades of bad arguments evangelicals made against homosexuals are now working against evangelicals instead of homosexuals.

Huzzah!

My apologies if this is a duplicate topic.

The rapid acceptance of homosexuality was inevitable once they came out of the closet. Homosexuals are our sons and daughters, our neighbors and the people we work with. We know them, we love them and we respect them. Racism, for example, is much more intractable problem because it is based on a superficial but readily identifiable characteristics, skin color, the presence or absence of eye hoods, etc., that prevents familiarity with the racists. This too will change, but slowly, as the so-called races intermarry. (From my admittedly limited view in my neighborhoods of suburban and midtown Atlanta, this process is well under way with about one in four couples my children’s age, ~30, being multiracial.)

We have had three evangelical presidents by my count, Carter, Clinton and Bush the younger. But the first two really didn't seem to push their religious beliefs as the basis of policy, echoing the default position of presidents before them. Nixon didn't govern with his Quaker pacifism at the fore or even evident, for example.

As a life long atheist, I can't help but believe that this is a tact admission that there is no help coming from gods that don't exist.

Perhaps the disaster that was the Bush II administration has turned part of the population against electing another evangelical to the presidency. One can only hope.</rambling>

 

[funinspace]

Yep, it has been an impressive shift over the last decade. I find it ironic that the fundagelicals don't really seem to get the fact that due to their rabid hostility to marriage equality, they are digging their own political grave. Yeah, Pres. Obama is the anti-Christ and America is laughing at you fools. I wonder what happens when Pres. Obama retires before invoking marshal law in Texas. Scream on fundagelicals...please don't figure it out LOL

 

[Keith&Co.]

I find it ironic that the fundagelicals don't really seem to get the fact that due to their rabid hostility to marriage equality, they are digging their own political grave.

Well, the conservatives have pretty much won on the 2nd amendment. There's no needless slaughter so horrific that America will start to question the rights of the gun owners to form a well ordered militia. It's what the founders wanted.
So now they cannot see that they've lost the battle on gay rights. From what they can see, it appears that insisting that their side is the one the founding fathers were on, that God's on, that good and decent citizens are on, SHOULD be making the world turn their way.

Why is the formula not working this time?

 

[SimpleDon]

I find it ironic that the fundagelicals don't really seem to get the fact that due to their rabid hostility to marriage equality, they are digging their own political grave.

Well, the conservatives have pretty much won on the 2nd amendment. There's no needless slaughter so horrific that America will start to question the rights of the gun owners to form a well ordered militia. It's what the founders wanted.
So now they cannot see that they've lost the battle on gay rights. From what they can see, it appears that insisting that their side is the one the founding fathers were on, that God's on, that good and decent citizens are on, SHOULD be making the world turn their way.

Why is the formula not working this time?

One of the most deranged conservative pundits, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review, said that he couldn't believe that their Supreme Court would approve gay marriage. Based presumably on their Constitution. But if they did then we all should support the religious freedom laws, such as Indiana passed, as conservatives' due for losing on gay marriage.

There is no mocking these guys that could eclipse the self-mocking of their own statements.

Goldberg is famous for the bizarre idea that there can be no possible harm from extreme conservatism because being a reactionary or a fascist are examples of the extremes of liberalism, not of the extremes of conservatism.

 

[ronburgundy]

hmmm.

So, 61% are at least "comfortable" with a gay candidate, versus only 53% with an "evangelical Christian" candidate.

However, back in 2006, the same survey showed that 43% were comfortable with a homosexual versus 41% with an evangelical.
So, being comfortable went up over the last 9 years for both groups, just moreso for homosexuals. Still good news, but it doesn't show that the evangelicals strategy hurt themselves, so much as didn't work very well.

Also, the sample is not representative of actual voters. It basically sampled equal numbers of each age group, whereas older people are far more likely to vote than 18-30 year olds. Among actual voters, being comfortable with an evangelical may still be higher than with a homosexual.

 

[Underseer]

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/05...-presidential-candidate-to-an-evangelical-one

The public's attitudes about homosexuality is changing very rapidly right now. Finally, all those decades of bad arguments evangelicals made against homosexuals are now working against evangelicals instead of homosexuals.

Huzzah!

My apologies if this is a duplicate topic.

The rapid acceptance of homosexuality was inevitable once they came out of the closet. Homosexuals are our sons and daughters, our neighbors and the people we work with. We know them, we love them and we respect them. Racism, for example, is much more intractable problem because it is based on a superficial but readily identifiable characteristics, skin color, the presence or absence of eye hoods, etc., that prevents familiarity with the racists. This too will change, but slowly, as the so-called races intermarry. (From my admittedly limited view in my neighborhoods of suburban and midtown Atlanta, this process is well under way with about one in four couples my children’s age, ~30, being multiracial.)

We have had three evangelical presidents by my count, Carter, Clinton and Bush the younger. But the first two really didn't seem to push their religious beliefs as the basis of policy, echoing the default position of presidents before them. Nixon didn't govern with his Quaker pacifism at the fore or even evident, for example.

As a life long atheist, I can't help but believe that this is a tact admission that there is no help coming from gods that don't exist.

Perhaps the disaster that was the Bush II administration has turned part of the population against electing another evangelical to the presidency. One can only hope.</rambling>

Bush is Methodist. People keep forgetting that.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, it has been an impressive shift over the last decade. I find it ironic that the fundagelicals don't really seem to get the fact that due to their rabid hostility to marriage equality, they are digging their own political grave. Yeah, Pres. Obama is the anti-Christ and America is laughing at you fools. I wonder what happens when Pres. Obama retires before invoking marshal law in Texas. Scream on fundagelicals...please don't figure it out LOL

You "forgot" to mention Obama's secret weather weapon or Jade Helm 15, which proves that you have either been duped by those conspiracies, or are actually part of those conspiracies! Why do you hate America?

 

[Underseer]

Well, the conservatives have pretty much won on the 2nd amendment. There's no needless slaughter so horrific that America will start to question the rights of the gun owners to form a well ordered militia. It's what the founders wanted.
So now they cannot see that they've lost the battle on gay rights. From what they can see, it appears that insisting that their side is the one the founding fathers were on, that God's on, that good and decent citizens are on, SHOULD be making the world turn their way.

Why is the formula not working this time?

One of the most deranged conservative pundits, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review, said that he couldn't believe that their Supreme Court would approve gay marriage. Based presumably on their Constitution. But if they did then we all should support the religious freedom laws, such as Indiana passed, as conservatives' due for losing on gay marriage.

There is no mocking these guys that could eclipse the self-mocking of their own statements.

Goldberg is famous for the bizarre idea that there can be no possible harm from extreme conservatism because being a reactionary or a fascist are examples of the extremes of liberalism, not of the extremes of conservatism.

Well, in fairness, compared to modern American conservolibertarians, the Nazis were pretty liberal. Nazis happen to be very conservative compared to everyone else, which is why sane people consider them rightists, but they aren't nearly rightist enough for the average Republican voter.

The Nazis didn't go far enough, and Republicans are determined to avoid making the same mistake.

 

[funinspace]

The rapid acceptance of homosexuality was inevitable once they came out of the closet. Homosexuals are our sons and daughters, our neighbors and the people we work with. We know them, we love them and we respect them. Racism, for example, is much more intractable problem because it is based on a superficial but readily identifiable characteristics, skin color, the presence or absence of eye hoods, etc., that prevents familiarity with the racists. This too will change, but slowly, as the so-called races intermarry. (From my admittedly limited view in my neighborhoods of suburban and midtown Atlanta, this process is well under way with about one in four couples my children’s age, ~30, being multiracial.)

We have had three evangelical presidents by my count, Carter, Clinton and Bush the younger. But the first two really didn't seem to push their religious beliefs as the basis of policy, echoing the default position of presidents before them. Nixon didn't govern with his Quaker pacifism at the fore or even evident, for example.

As a life long atheist, I can't help but believe that this is a tact admission that there is no help coming from gods that don't exist.

Perhaps the disaster that was the Bush II administration has turned part of the population against electing another evangelical to the presidency. One can only hope.</rambling>

Bush is Methodist. People keep forgetting that.

Yes, a United Methodist from Texas. There are reasons that the UMC periodically teeters on the edge of splitting. I think the only thing that keeps the liberal areas tied to the southern conservative side is that they all like the status of being the largest Protestant sect in the US. But the Shrub did play well with the evangelicals and talked up the born again shit. Where as the evangelicals pretty much hated Clinton. With all the right wing public frothing, it is easy to forget that the word "evangelical" is more like a greased pig.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, is about as non right wing evangelical as a group can get, yet the word is in their title.

 

[laughing dog]

If I had been asked in the poll, I would have said I preferred an evangelical homosexual President.

 

[ronburgundy]

The rapid acceptance of homosexuality was inevitable once they came out of the closet. Homosexuals are our sons and daughters, our neighbors and the people we work with. We know them, we love them and we respect them. Racism, for example, is much more intractable problem because it is based on a superficial but readily identifiable characteristics, skin color, the presence or absence of eye hoods, etc., that prevents familiarity with the racists. This too will change, but slowly, as the so-called races intermarry. (From my admittedly limited view in my neighborhoods of suburban and midtown Atlanta, this process is well under way with about one in four couples my children’s age, ~30, being multiracial.)

We have had three evangelical presidents by my count, Carter, Clinton and Bush the younger. But the first two really didn't seem to push their religious beliefs as the basis of policy, echoing the default position of presidents before them. Nixon didn't govern with his Quaker pacifism at the fore or even evident, for example.

As a life long atheist, I can't help but believe that this is a tact admission that there is no help coming from gods that don't exist.

Perhaps the disaster that was the Bush II administration has turned part of the population against electing another evangelical to the presidency. One can only hope.</rambling>

Bush is Methodist. People keep forgetting that.

As with all religious categories, what label a person claims and what religious beliefs and related actions they actually practice are entirely separately and often unrelated. Which of the following better characterize what Bush II said and did as president?

".....of or relating to a Christian sect or group that stresses the authority of the Bible, the importance of believing that Jesus Christ saved you personally from sin or hell, and the preaching of these beliefs to other people."

".....an insistence that the heart of religion lies in a personal relationship with God; by simplicity of worship; by the partnership of ordained ministers and laity in the worship and administration of the church; by a concern for the underprivileged and the improvement of social conditions."

Most people would correctly say the former, which are defining aspects of evangelicalism as opposed to the latter which is methodism.
The United Methodist Church is very liberal on most social issues, opposing the death penalty, war, and detention and torture of political enemies, and generally strong on church-state separation with no prayer in schools nor gov promotion of any religion.

IOW, people forget that Bush II claimed to be a Methodist, because that is meaningless. They accurately remember that he spoke and acted like an evangelical, which is what matters.
What it does show is that many of the people claiming to belong to a more moderate or liberal religion are largely fundamentalists in disguise.

 

[Underseer]

hmmm.

So, 61% are at least "comfortable" with a gay candidate, versus only 53% with an "evangelical Christian" candidate.

However, back in 2006, the same survey showed that 43% were comfortable with a homosexual versus 41% with an evangelical.
So, being comfortable went up over the last 9 years for both groups, just moreso for homosexuals. Still good news, but it doesn't show that the evangelicals strategy hurt themselves, so much as didn't work very well.

Also, the sample is not representative of actual voters. It basically sampled equal numbers of each age group, whereas older people are far more likely to vote than 18-30 year olds. Among actual voters, being comfortable with an evangelical may still be higher than with a homosexual.

There are plenty of other studies showing that one of the things driving this flood away from Christianity is due to the fact that the right wing propaganda machine has successfully caused the public to equate Christianity with conservative extremism.

At any given moment, conservatives are going to make up about a third of the population, as will liberals, with the middle falling somewhere in between and sloshing around with the wind. By convincing everyone that you have to be a conservative extremist to be a Christian, the right wing propagandists made it inevitable that Christianity would lose a large number of members, particularly considering that we started out at a saturation point in which nearly everyone self-identified as Christian.

Unless Christians can divorce their religion from politics, their numbers will inevitably be driven down towards the one third mark. Once we reach that point, their truth claims will no longer be regarded as a default position. They will be just another metaphysical minority (even if they are a plurality), and their arguments will have to compete on equal footing with every other metaphysical position. Once we reach that point, things will get even worse for the Christians because their arguments can't possibly compete on equal footing; that's why Christian apologists spend so much time trying to shift the burden of proof.

- - - Updated - - -

Bush is Methodist. People keep forgetting that.

As with all religious categories, what label a person claims and what religious beliefs and related actions they actually practice are entirely separately and often unrelated. Which of the following better characterize what Bush II said and did as president?

".....of or relating to a Christian sect or group that stresses the authority of the Bible, the importance of believing that Jesus Christ saved you personally from sin or hell, and the preaching of these beliefs to other people."

".....an insistence that the heart of religion lies in a personal relationship with God; by simplicity of worship; by the partnership of ordained ministers and laity in the worship and administration of the church; by a concern for the underprivileged and the improvement of social conditions."

Most people would correctly say the former, which are defining aspects of evangelicalism as opposed to the latter which is methodism.
The United Methodist Church is very liberal on most social issues, opposing the death penalty, war, and detention and torture of political enemies, and generally strong on church-state separation with no prayer in schools nor gov promotion of any religion.

IOW, people forget that Bush II claimed to be a Methodist, because that is meaningless. They accurately remember that he spoke and acted like an evangelical, which is what matters.
What it does show is that many of the people claiming to belong to a more moderate or liberal religion are largely fundamentalists in disguise.

There's a big faction of evangelicals within Methodism, but you can't make sweeping statements and equate Methodists with evangelism.