Evangelical priorities: abortions, homos and TV

"The survey explored two important slices of the Christian vote: born again Christians, a group of Americans who accounted for about half of all ballots cast in the 2004 election and the smaller, more socially conservative subset of born agains, labeled as evangelical voters. Evangelicals represent about one-fifth of all born again Christians.

[...]

The nation's 68 million registered voters who are born again Christians were most concerned about personal indebtedness (79%), poverty (78%), and HIV/AIDS (77%) - levels similar to that of other voters. However, born again Christians emerged as distinct from other voters in relation to many other issues. They are more concerned than were non-born again adults about illegal immigration (68%), abortion (67%), the content of television and movies (60%), homosexual lifestyles (51%), and homosexual activists (49%).
The subset of evangelicals (representing about 15 million of the born again voters) displayed a significantly different view on many issues. Evangelicals' top concern - by a wide margin - was abortion (94%). This was followed by the personal debt of Americans (81%), the content of television and movies (79%), homosexual activists (75%), and gay and lesbian lifestyles (75%). Evangelicals were more likely than other adults to be concerned about illegal immigration, but they were less worried about HIV/AIDS than virtually any other segment of the population. One of the most significant differences of opinion expressed in the survey was the skepticism evangelicals harbor toward global warming (only 33% identified it as a major issue) compared to the rest of the population."

Barna.org, January 21, 2008

Faith vs. the Faithless

"When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.
The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.
The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics."

David Brooks, NY Times, December 7, 2007

This is actually quite scary. It has an uncanny resemblance to how Hitler made the Jews an internal enemy. However, for Romney it's more of an attempt to say: "Look, they're more deviant than me!".

Atheist History Month?

"Dawkins has also suggested that atheists, like gays, should come out of the closet. Well, what if they don't want to? I doubt that Dawkins would support "outing" atheists. But can an atheist "rights" group be far behind? Hate crimes laws to protect atheists? Affirmative action for unbelievers? An Atheist Annual Parade, complete with dancers and floats? Atheist History Month?
Honestly, I think the whole atheist-gay analogy is quite absurd. It seems strange for Dawkins to urge atheists to come out of the closet in the style of the all-American boy standing up on the dining table of his public high school and confessing that he is a homosexual? Dawkins, being British, doesn't seem to recognize that this would not win many popularity contests in America."

Dinesh D'Souza, Townhall.com, November 12, 2007

It's an interesting thought that D'Souza has stumbled upon here: "Hate crimes laws to protect atheists? Affirmative action for unbelievers? An Atheist Annual Parade, complete with dancers and floats? Atheist History Month?" I must admit I take a liking to this. But as D'Souza says: "this would not win many popularity contests in America.". Damn right, it wouldn't. Which is probably why it's needed.

Atheist History Month: One equivalent is Black History Month. According to stats posted earlier, 4 % says they are less likely to vote for a black presidential candidate in USA, while 63% are less likely to vote for non-believer. There's also National Hispanic Heritage Month, and 14% would not vote for a Hispanic candidate
Atheist Annual Parade: The equivalent is the gay parades. 46% would not vote for a homosexual. That's a lot, but 63% is more.
Hate crimes laws: Obviously needed, although I suspect Atheists are already covered (unless for a change they don't count Atheism as a religion)
Affirmative Action for unbelievers: This usually covers race and gender. Stats for Black and Hispanics have been mentioned, and only 11% would reject a female candidate. 7% would reject a disabled candidate. Again: 63% would reject an Atheist candidate.

OK, so let's see which group is most reviled among Americans:

63% do not want an Atheist candidate
46% do not want a homosexual candidate
14% do not want a Hispanic candidate
11% do not want a female candidate
7% do not want a disabled candidate
4% do not want a black candidate

I think Atheists are presently the most hated group. Please inspect the stats below if you disagree. Now, I'm not one to argue for parades or affirmative action, not for Atheists nor anyone else, but Atheist History Month would probably be very useful in USA, considering that a lot of the bigotry stems from ignorance!