Tea Parties More Popular Than the GOP

52 responses so far

• 1 BarryS // Dec 7, 2009 at 11:25 am

  Hilarious -

  In another sign that the Tea Party movement could cause electoral headaches for the GOP, a new poll shows the new conservative brand doing better than the Republican party on a three-way generic ballot.

  In a three-way Generic Ballot test, a telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

• 2 Toddtheconservative // Dec 7, 2009 at 11:30 am

  The problem with these so called tea beggars is t is mostly out of control religious people who make up this movement. Here is a perfect example of who we are dealing with at this link:

  http://hpe.com/pages/full_story/push?article-ROBERT+HEALY-+Hate+is+evil-+so+why+is+there+so+much+around-%20&id=4926599-ROBERT+HEALY-+Hate+is+evil-+so+why+is+there+so+much+around-&instance=most_recommended

• 3 Carney // Dec 7, 2009 at 11:43 am

  Todd, no one who is a conservative uses the obscene, 5th grade insult “tea baggers” to describe this movement.

  For the record, it draws its inspiration from the original Boston Tea Party. For those educated in schools where the main subjects are diversity, the environment, condoms, and self-esteem, the Boston Tea Party was a protest of the British-imposed tax on imported tea, in which Bostonians, dressed up like American Indians to disguise their individual identities, stormed the ships on which the tea was being held and dumped it into Boston Harbor.

• 4 DFL // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:14 pm

  The Rasmussen poll points to continued conservative disaffection with the Republican Party as an institution. From the Bush family to Mitch McConnell to John McCain and his sweetheart Lindsey Graham, it amazes how oblivious the Republican leadership is to the viewws of its base.

• 5 garlic // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:25 pm

  Carney, I think you may be confused as to what the original boston tea party members were protesting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party). Tea taxes were actually just reduced on the tea that the Boston Tea party dumped.

• 6 24AheadDotCom // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:29 pm

  Most of those responding are just angered by the GOP and are seeking an alternative; I doubt whether many are true supporters of the “parties”. And, if most of those were able to look inside the Trojan Horse they wouldn’t like what they see: former Ron Paul organizers, Randroids, and Beltway insiders. One of the latter – a major tea party organizer – did stimulus lobbying for a couple of companies at the same time as his organization was incompetently opposing the stimulus. He also supports massive immigration and has defended illegal immigration. Another string-puller is part of the “Kochtopus”. Another appeared in support of amnesty sitting right alongside the ACLU and other far-left groups.

  For the details, see my extensive coverage here:

  http://24ahead.com/s/tea-parties

• 7 Churl // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:29 pm

  Someone interested in building a conservativism that can win again ought to pay some attention to this trend.

• 8 balconesfault // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:30 pm

  Carney – you omit that the chosen form of protest early in the movement was to send tea bags to Congressmen.

  And who can forget Teabag a Liberal Democrat!

  That said, I do agree that calling the protestors “Teabaggers” is crude. But I consider calling it the “Tea Bag” movement, after their original call to action, is wholly reasonable.

  The problem for Republicans is that the Tea Party Party (see … “Tea Bag Party” is so much less awkward) is a natural evolution from the main Republican Party litmus test over the last couple decades – adherence to the failed pledge of GHW Bush read my lips … no new taxes”.

  Fundamentally this pledge, this ideology, is going to clash with good governance. Good governance dictates that sometimes you will raise taxes, sometimes lower them … sometimes you’ll create new taxes, sometimes you’ll do away with ones that there’s a good argument against sustaining.

  As a blunt intrument to beat the Democrats with, and to threaten moderate Republicans with, leaders of the GOP have for years wielded this no new taxes cudgel.

  It is not a surprise at all that they’ve managed to convince a sizable portion of their base. And it’s not a surprise that a sizable portion of the Republican Party that doesn’t believe in this ideology has left the party … leaving a majority of those remaining being those who embrace it wholly.

• 9 Neo // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:41 pm

  The Tea Party movement shows that having the Republican Party move to be a “Democrat Lite,” like so may believe that DC Republicans have become, will be the end of the party.

  As far as the Boston Tea Party, the Indemnity Act of 1767 did give the East India Company a refund of the 25% duty on tea that was re-exported to the colonies, but it followed that with the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which levied new taxes, including one on tea, in the colonies. The Townshend duties renewed a controversy about Parliament’s right to tax the colonies.

• 10 balconesfault // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:50 pm

  Neo: The Tea Party movement shows that having the Republican Party move to be a “Democrat Lite,” like so may believe that DC Republicans have become, will be the end of the party.

  I would love to see a precise definition of what “Democrat Lite” means.

  If it means what I think it does … on an issue by issue basis … then Democrat + “Democrat Lite” creates a structural electoral firewall that would doom the Tea Party/Republican to a permanent minority status.

• 11 Reason60 // Dec 7, 2009 at 12:58 pm

  Balcone raises a good point- that unlike conservatism, Tea Party sentiments do not allow for good governance.

  Conservatism is open to changes in policy, sometimes reducing taxes, sometimes raising them; sometimes increasing spending, sometime lowering spending.

  When what you have to work with is “cut all taxes all the time” and “government can’t ever do anything right, ever”, what you end up with is confusion and unfocused anger. Which is exactly the Tea Party position.

  They don’t have a clear and coherent message- it is anger, unfocused, with ever-changing targets, almost subconscious in its unwillingness to clearly finger a culprit.
  They want less spending, but where? Well, they aren’t sure. They want a balanced budget, but how? Again, no one is really sure.
  What is the Tea Party foreign policy? Anyone’s guess.

• 12 PracticalGirl // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:27 pm

  24AheadDotCom says

  “Most of those responding are just angered by the GOP and are seeking an alternative; I doubt whether many are true supporters of the “parties”.

  Would that were true. But many sitting GOP politicians, including John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Michelle Bachmann et all, have had very public support of the movement. Did you watch the Tea Party March on Capitol Hill?

  Churl says

  “Someone interested in building a conservativism that can win again ought to pay some attention to this trend.”

  See above. Many GOP politicians are paying attention to the popularity and media coverage this can bring to them.

• 13 Add Cream, Add Sugar, Get A Political Party « Around The Sphere // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:37 pm

  [...] Tim Mak at FrumForum: These results are in alignment with the other features of the right that Rasmussen has been tracking: weak support for the GOP among self-identified conservatives, and disdain for the Republican establishment among self-identified GOP voters. [...]

• 14 balconesfault // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:46 pm

  Many GOP politicians are paying attention to the popularity and media coverage this can bring to them.

  Interesting concept … to the extent that much of what is labelled the “liberal media” was ever truly liberal (I prefer “corporate media”) it seems clear that in the last few decades reporting and punditry among traditional media have moved rightward from where it was during the days of Cronkite. As a result, Democratic politicians competing for voters who get their information from those sources have had to move rightward as well since the 60’s and 70’s.

  On the other hand, Fox News and Limbaugh have responsed to electoral defeats of Republicans by making the pitch for the Republican Party to move even farther to the right. The Tea Party Party owes its existence in no small part to Glenn Beck. Fox News polling consistently provides results that are significantly more right leaning than produced by most other pollsters.

  In short, the conservative media is providing information to their viewers and listeners to convince them to move even further to the right – which has the effect of widening the gulf between them and the rest of the public. And inevitably, politicians will follow.

• 15 jakester // Dec 7, 2009 at 2:04 pm

  Carney
  You have a firm grasp of school curriculum, NOT!
  Besides, sending teabags is an anarchronism, teabags didn’t exist in 1774. They should have gotten the raw, unground tea leaves and sent them. Face it , a little research into popular slang might have avoided that gaffe.

• 16 PracticalGirl // Dec 7, 2009 at 2:17 pm

  balconesfault:

  “..it seems clear that in the last few decades reporting and punditry among traditional media have moved rightward from where it was during the days of Cronkite.”

  Certainly, and at the loud and nasty insistence of the GOP. Mainstream media bashing/blaming for thier ills is a plank in the GOP’s platform, so much so that they spent a large part of the first night of the 2008 convention highlighting it. My point? The GOP created their own media, and their own media has created a monster.

• 17 24AheadDotCom // Dec 7, 2009 at 2:39 pm

  I have yet to see a “partier” who’s “with it” as the kids say. Instead, they’re like Steve Forbes supporters on meth, glassily-eyed repeating their mantras and waving their loopy signs. Just like their Ron Paul supporting forebears, they think that cheap stunts, slogans, loopy signs, and shouting down their opponents will carry the day. Most of them can’t even do basic research, such as looking at the link in my comment above to see that I not only saw the 9/12 march, I posted about it.

  What the U.S. needs is a mainstream movement that would support fiscal responsibility (but not anything like the Randroid looniness of the “parties”), would oppose illegal activity (an area where the GOP/Dems are very vulnerable), would oppose the Gramscian concepts that are now a core part of the Dem Party, and would be somewhat libertarian on social issues. If that were run by smart people with high integrity (unlike the “parties”) and were dedicated to being non-corrupt, it could gain wide support.

• 18 PracticalGirl // Dec 7, 2009 at 3:08 pm

  24AheadDotcom:

  I have long wondered where the mainstream movement is that would capture the centrist, responsible desires of the electorate as a whole. LOVE to hear the GOP and the Democrats fight over whether or not we are a center-right or center-left nation (and they’re both correct), and then each retreat to the most extreme postions when their base neeeds leadership most-curing their minority moments.

  I think you answered your own question, though.

  “If that were run by smart people with high integrity…”

  A smart person with high integrity wants to win to try to implement his ideas, and starting fresh with no campaign bucks or fundraising machine is a tall order.

  Maybe the “with it” set will get smart and do this.

• 19 BarryS // Dec 7, 2009 at 3:26 pm

  “A smart person with high integrity wants to win to try to implement his ideas, and starting fresh with no campaign bucks or fundraising machine is a tall order.”

  And there you have hit the nail straight and true.

  It’s the campaign money that is the cause of the rot in both parties. And it will never change. The very people with the ability to get rid of all outside lobbyist money are the same people who will never make that decision. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

  There should be a $25 limit on campaign contributions and a ceiling on totals raised. That way there is a level playing field for “outsiders” to get a chance. Term limits are another thing long overdue.

• 20 CentristNYer // Dec 7, 2009 at 3:58 pm

  It’s very easy to rise in the polls when you don’t really stand for anything and haven’t staked out positions that go much deeper than saying “taxes bad.” Even bumper sticker messages require more thought.

• 21 PracticalGirl // Dec 7, 2009 at 4:05 pm

  BarryS-

  What will term limits, other than the ones we already have called elections, do?

• 22 balconesfault // Dec 7, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  20 CentristNYer
  It’s very easy to rise in the polls when you don’t really stand for anything and haven’t staked out positions that go much deeper than saying “taxes bad.” Even bumper sticker messages require more thought.

  But what is interesting is that these results, and similar ones, may well buoy challenges that end up carrying “taxes bad” candidates to win the nomination in many districts. And then what?

• 23 PracticalGirl // Dec 7, 2009 at 4:18 pm

  balconesfault:

  “But what is interesting is that these results, and similar ones, may well buoy challenges that end up carrying “taxes bad” candidates to win the nomination in many districts. And then what?”

  A grim, grim thought, expecially since the Tea Partiers are hellbent on national positions that require some knowledge of foreign policy and domestic governance. Several years ago, we had an anarchist uprising (mostly, they just destroyed property and made vague demands) in the Northwest. I imagine Congress would operate very much the same.

• 24 jakester // Dec 7, 2009 at 4:18 pm

  PracticalGirl
  these days all we get is punditry or childish WWF feuds with rivals, and this isn’t just FOX. Whatever Cronkite’s faults were, he never made himself the center of the story unlike Bill O’Reilly who is always reporting on how all those eeevil people are attacking him.

• 25 About tea party candidate, generic, republicans, rasmussen poll, republican party, gop | Find me About // Dec 7, 2009 at 4:19 pm

  [...] Rasmussen released a new poll today that illustrates the enormous political support behind the Tea Party movement, suggesting that Tea Partiers are significantly more popular than the Republican Party. The results are staggering: in a generic…Read Original Story: Tea Parties More Popular Than the GOP – FrumForum [...]

• 26 BarryS // Dec 7, 2009 at 4:20 pm

  BarryS-

  What will term limits, other than the ones we already have called elections, do?

  It will give the chance for new blood to come into the legislature. We have incumbents that have been in the Senate for 30-40- 50 years! If they turn over after two terms that gives the chance for fresh thinking. What company keeps a CEO for 50 years?

  It’s highly likely that if you have been in power for 50 years you get stale and more open to special interests. Plus if you know it was a max two term limit it would stop the constant campaign aspect of the people in congress

• 27 RioRancho // Dec 7, 2009 at 4:27 pm

  We already have term limits – look how many sitting senators and congressmen were either turfed out or chose to “spend more time with their families” rather than run in 2006 and 2008.

• 28 teabag // Dec 7, 2009 at 4:46 pm

  “We already have term limits – look how many sitting senators and congressmen were either turfed out or chose to “spend more time with their families” rather than run in 2006 and 2008.”There

  Not nearly enough! There are far too many on either side who have entrenched positions.

• 29 franco 2 // Dec 7, 2009 at 5:00 pm

  Oh they are such rubes! And the GOP elite are such brilliant policy formulators. Democracy is horrid dontcha think? Can’t we just have David Frum and some of the erudite commenters here to run the country?

• 30 PracticalGirl // Dec 7, 2009 at 5:03 pm

  BarryS:

  “What company keeps a CEO for 50 years?”

  Good point, but how many successful companies fire a good CEO after 8? You want us to require that of the electorate? Ask New York City how they handled that with the Mayor’s position.

  You make a decent point, but I shudder at the thought of a new crop of incoming freshmen every 8 years. And I would be very interested to see how many politicians-push comes to shove-would actually vote “yea” on this, if it means saying Sayonara.

• 31 CentristNYer // Dec 7, 2009 at 5:26 pm

  I’m sympathetic to Barry’s desire to keep the system from atrophying, but I’m uncomfortable with a government that forces out its servants without regard to their performance. That’s what the ballot box is for and the founding fathers had the wisdom to leave it at that.

  And while it’s historically true that incumbents have been difficult to dislodge once they get into power, in recent years their advantage has not been nearly as great and the turnover rate in both the house and Senate has been higher than ever. I see no evidence to suggest that that trend is going to reverse itself.

• 32 PracticalGirl // Dec 7, 2009 at 5:31 pm

  I think BarryS has one solid point: The more entrenched a politician, the more money he usually can bag for his state.

  But the business model falls flat. If you look at the top performing corporations in the country, you may (in some instances) see a CEO change every decade or so. But you don’t see them replaced with rubes who just got their start in the industry. Most CEOs in the top performers have decades of progressive experience within their industry, and many have risen through the ranks in from within the same companies they now lead.

  A more apt analogy would be CEO=House/Senate leader. And that, as we have seen, is a regularly swinging pendulum in Congress.

• 33 LFC // Dec 7, 2009 at 5:50 pm

  The GOP has the same balancing act with the Tea Partiers that any politician has when trying to harness the support of a highly energized by rudderless group. There is anger, there is passion, but there is no consistent philosophy to follow. There is no way to please them all, because they all have different definitions of what should be done, or they have no definition at all. They’re just pissed off about … STUFF!

  I think reason60 nailed it when they said…
  They don’t have a clear and coherent message- it is anger, unfocused, with ever-changing targets, almost subconscious in its unwillingness to clearly finger a culprit. They want less spending, but where? Well, they aren’t sure. They want a balanced budget, but how? Again, no one is really sure.
  What is the Tea Party foreign policy? Anyone’s guess.

• 34 PracticalGirl // Dec 7, 2009 at 5:57 pm

  LFC, reason60 got the bottom line:

  The Tea Partiers are a “revolution with no solution” looking for a home for their many grievances. How many of these grievances are organic and which ones are trumped up by the perspective media and the media-whorish politicians who legitimize and give the movement legs? That’s my main question.

• 35 jakester // Dec 7, 2009 at 5:57 pm

  franco 2
  You are right, we have to make sure that the people running this country are as common, simple minded and ignorant as possible. Of course, they will be as utterly uncorrupt and selfless as they come. You seem to think being common is a virtue and they will have no agendas, ambitions or needs of their own

• 36 aDude // Dec 7, 2009 at 6:34 pm

  I think we are missing the point. I like to think of Conservatives as falling into one of three camps – economic Conservatives (limited government, limited taxation), government Conservatives (govern at the lowest level possible, uphold Federalism), and social Conservatives (use the power of government to advance a particular religious view). Obviously there is some overlap, particularly between economic Conservatives and government Conservatives.

  The Tea Folks (seems easier to say and less 5th grade) by and large fall into the first catagory. They see large deficits as far as the eye can see and believe that this is not a good thing. Yes, there are some hangers-on who are birthers, racists, and other undesireables, but the thrust of the Tea message is that government is growing too large, too expensive, and too expansive.

  Because of the record of the Republican party of the last eight years (unfunded entitlements such as Medicare Part D, large deficits while expanding spending), the party does not have the appeal it should to the Tea Folks. Instead it allows itself to be defined by the social Conservatives like Palin. This makes it less appealing to the economic Conservatives who are driving the Tea Folks movement.

  Emphasize economic and regluatory Conservatism, deemphasize social Conservatism, and you have The New Majority.

• 37 Moderate // Dec 7, 2009 at 10:54 pm

  This too shall pass. The majority of Tea Partiers are uneducated Southerners. When the next culture war issue distracts them, they’ll redirect their wrath.

  The only reason to tolerate them for the moment is because they’re useful idiots in killing health care reform.

• 38 lowandslow // Dec 7, 2009 at 11:51 pm

  So people are going to vote for a movement? What is the Tea Party’s answers to the problems this country faces? A rally? The solvency problems of S.S. & Medicare? A march on D.C.? The continued threat of radical Islam? A “support the troops” fundraiser? Massive budget deficits? A speech by Palin?
  Nobody’s happy with the current state of the GOP and it’s current leadership, that’s a given. But show me where the Tea Party movement and it’s so called leadership has any answers to any problems. It’s rhetoric they have. Solutions? Not so much.

• 39 palomino70 // Dec 8, 2009 at 6:55 am

  Tea partiers like to claim that they get lots of support from disaffected Dems, as well as disaffected Republicans. But this poll suggests that’s not the case.

  The generic two-party ballot is pretty close these days, often with the GOP slightly ahead. But the introduction of the TPP suddenly gives the Dems a 2-to-1 edge over the GOP.

  Actually having Tea Party candidates would likely be a disaster at the polls, as they would siphon off GOP voters but leave the Dems unscathed. Then again, winning elections may not really be the short-term goal of the tea party people. I get the sense they really just want to vent about an old-fashioned America they see disappearing.

• 40 venerability // Dec 8, 2009 at 7:02 am

  Polling results are always totally suspect, unless it’s very close to a major election, because the extremists will participate in polls, and the rest of us won’t.

  Here’s what I do when a pollster calls, and I am probably typical of non-fanatics: I immediately ask, “Whom are you conducting this poll for?” They always say, “We can’t tell you.” So I say, “No, Thank You.”

  But the fanatics will always participate and probably start ranting at the pollster most of the time.

  As for Independents saying they like the “Tea Party” idea, I would wager 90 percent or more of those who say so have NO idea whatsoever what a lot of Tea Partiers stand for, which is so little – some say NO – government, they are barely better than nihilists.

  In any case, any Readers who believe in trying to reach consensus on national issues, building bridges among factions, and moving this country forward again in a thoughtful, cordial, and respectful way might want to join our brand-new Centrists group at Linked In.

  Interesting, informative discussions. No ranters and ravers, script bots, or political operatives allowed.

  Please contact me at Linked In for an invitation.

  Thank you.

  Ellen Brandt, Ph.D.

• 41 DFL // Dec 8, 2009 at 8:43 am

  When it comes down to 2012, this poll points to how easier it will be for Democrats to unite behind Barack Obama incomparison to Republican disunity. President Obama will find it easier to unite his party than Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin or an other GOPnominee unites Republicans.

• 42 franco 2 // Dec 8, 2009 at 9:13 am

  Moderate says:

  “This too shall pass. The majority of Tea Partiers are uneducated Southerners. When the next culture war issue distracts them, they’ll redirect their wrath.”

  Gagdad Bob says:
  “Perhaps this idea of the “worship of intelligence” is new to you, but it is the blue thread that runs through the modern left extending over the past century or so. Although it is primarily a narcissistic exercise in self-flattery, those who are not members of the cult are not just considered wrong, but dismissed as morons. But one of the bases of wisdom — which transcends the mere intellectualism of the tenured — is to know the limits of intelligence. And the left repeatedly fails in this regard, again, because of the replacement of God with human (small r) reason.

  Nearly every leftist policy failure falls into this trap, and yet, the prescription is always more of the same. As intelligent as these people believe themselves to be, they never actually question the assumptions of their worldview, much less set out to determine whether their policies are actually effective (much less frankly destructive).” – Gagdad Bob ONE COSMOS

• 43 franco 2 // Dec 8, 2009 at 9:19 am

  jakester,

  William F. Buckley Jr.: “I’d rather be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard.”

  Me too.

• 44 balconesfault // Dec 8, 2009 at 9:59 am

  And the left repeatedly fails in this regard, again, because of the replacement of God with human (small r) reason.

  Perhaps that’s because we on the left don’t exactly trust the scribes who impart God’s wisdom to us to have accurately captured his intent.

  In reality, it is much easier for a secularist to question his or her own assumptions, because those assumptions aren’t presumably derived via edict from some supernatural being, but rather derive from an observation of the natural world.

• 45 franco 2 // Dec 8, 2009 at 10:39 am

  balconesfault

  Because one believes in God, or a God, or some supernatural force that may be unknowable by the intellect, does not mean that they eschew reason, they just tend to be a lot less arrogant about their place in the world, which is actually much more realistic.

  There is a difference in believing in “God” and believing one knows the Godbeings “intent” and I believe you are conveniently conflating the two. If you read the One Cosmos blog you would not find any dogma, just some pretty good philosophical thought.

  “In reality, it is much easier for a secularist to question his or her own assumptions, because those assumptions aren’t presumably derived via edict from some supernatural being, but rather derive from an observation of the natural world.”

  That assumes that all those who believe in God get their info via “edict” which is not the case in general, so let’s start with that “assumption”. I derive my views from observation of the natural world and one of the things I have observed is that my intelligence and knowledge is severely limited. I have the ability however to understand that the Universe may be more extraordinary than I have the ability to imagine.

  It’s a possibility, and looking at the world as it is, quite a strong one. Just sayin’

• 46 balconesfault // Dec 8, 2009 at 10:47 am

  There is a difference in believing in “God” and believing one knows the Godbeings “intent” and I believe you are conveniently conflating the two.

  Actually, I’m not the one who conflates them. For example, I certainly am a deist … yet I am constantly accused of being an atheist for doubting that man should rely on direction from God as a means of deciding public policy.

  I derive my views from observation of the natural world and one of the things I have observed is that my intelligence and knowledge is severely limited. I have the ability however to understand that the Universe may be more extraordinary than I have the ability to imagine.

  I agree. This is actually the basis for science, that we will constantly learn about what we don’t know, and that we must modify our assumptions and worldview in response.

  In this, it stands in opposition to the theologues, who use science to reinforce what they already know from scripture.

• 47 franco 2 // Dec 8, 2009 at 12:10 pm

  “Actually, I’m not the one who conflates them. For example, I certainly am a deist … yet I am constantly accused of being an atheist for doubting that man should rely on direction from God as a means of deciding public policy.

  Well, I wouldn’t accuse you of that, and whomever does would be a narrow minded dolt in my opinion. Certainly religious fundamentalists and non-thinking believers of dogma are not people who I want to rely on public policy decisions. I am just making the point that the quote that employs the word “God” does not necessarily mean that the argument is between those who are scientists vs. believers of edicts from above.

  “This is actually the basis for science, that we will constantly learn about what we don’t know, and that we must modify our assumptions and worldview in response.”

  I agree but I would make one elaboration which might reiterate the overall point which is that we should also be careful to remember that we are operating from assumptions and have an inherent bias to look for that which validates our assumptions, which can take us down a very narrow path in the pursuit of knowledge or in our expectations. A good book that covers this subject from a secular POV is “The Black Swan” .

  Intellectual analysis can become a default “god” and can become its’ own kind of dogma people can get pretty heady thinking they know stuff that they really don’t.

• 48 balconesfault // Dec 8, 2009 at 1:01 pm

  I am just making the point that the quote that employs the word “God” does not necessarily mean that the argument is between those who are scientists vs. believers of edicts from above.

  Works for me. As a Scoutleader, I’ve had times where I’ve had to counsel boys who do consider themselves atheists … which runs smack into the BSA oath and law. Not being a fan of headlines, but not wanting to allow narrow mindedness to push these boys out of a very useful program, I have encouraged them to think of the term “a Scout is Reverent” as meaning not necessarily obedience to some unseen diety, but rather a respect for nature, and an openness for the idea that they can’t necessarily know everything, and that the world exists for more than their own personal pleasure.

• 49 anniemargret // Dec 8, 2009 at 7:16 pm

  I agree with you both, balcons and franco. I have evolved from a strict Roman Catholic in my youth to a more generalized view of God, and it is now difficult to define it for myself, but I am certainly closer to the view of deism or unitarianism. That said I’ve always believed that every person is on a personal journey for Truth…and for some that means a more material view of the world without any supernatural deity or spirit and for others, a feeling of a Divine presence in the world and in consciousness.

  No one has the right to inflict their beliefs on another without permission, and it is why prosyletizing is wrong to me. Dogma can occur on both extremes, those who believe there is only one path to God, (their path), or an atheistic view which believes unequivocably that there is no ultimate Source for the creation of the universe or in the hearts and mind of men/women.

  But for us here in the USA the biggest problem is the breakdown of separation of church and state. While I like my freedom to find God in my own way in my own time, I dislike the the thrust of the religious right to foist their beliefs into the federal government. This is a dangerous path and should be rejected from both parties for the good of the country and our Constitution .

  “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God, the things that are God’s.”
  - Jesus Christ

• 50 anniemargret // Dec 8, 2009 at 7:20 pm

  And before the atheists here feel insulted, I deplore religious people forcing their views on them. I believe in absolute freedom of religion and freedom from religion – it is certainly what makes us our nation so great. But I am deeply concerned that dogmatists are single-minded into changing our secular country under the Constitution to a ‘Christian government’ as I have heard from many people, including some evangelical friends. This is nothing more than religious fascism.

• 51 franco 2 // Dec 9, 2009 at 8:26 am

  “But for us here in the USA the biggest problem is the breakdown of separation of church and state. While I like my freedom to find God in my own way in my own time, I dislike the the thrust of the religious right to foist their beliefs into the federal government. This is a dangerous path and should be rejected from both parties for the good of the country and our Constitution .”

  “No one has the right to inflict their beliefs on another without permission, and it is why prosyletizing is wrong to me. Dogma can occur on both extremes….”

  And in the middle too IMO. But I disagree about “rights” people have a right to speak out against what they believe is wrong (or right) and it is entirely your choice to accept it or reject it. Surely you and others are not so feeble-minded that hearing someone else speak will somehow influence you unduly.

  Our government is basically a result of Christian beliefs, like it or not. One of the thing I realized living in a non-christian country (Egypt) is how much we in America; non-believers; agnostics and atheists included, really hold Christian values by default.

  All of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our country has survived and prospered as a result of our Constitution which is based on religious abstractions from that tradition.

  To get down to the nitty gritty. Notice one of the central laws (commandments) of Christianity is “Thou shalt not kill” We all believe this whether we are athiests or biblethumpers. Yet in Islam for example there is no such law. Laws in Islam actually exist as to who you can kill and what for, but there is no blanket statement saying it is wrong to kill.. The fact that there is some hypocrisy, or convenient exceptions our governmant makes in this Judeo-Christian ethic is irrelevant, since governments can’t be moral, only its citizens can strive for morality and help to create in a Democracy a more “moral” government.

  Therefore people have a right to try to influence their government (and others) as they see fit. I personally don’t believe in global warming I am an agnostic on the subject leaning toward “atheistic” views now. But Al Gore has a right to preach and proselytize all he wants. I have no problem with the “religious right” trying to do this either. Just because they come from a dogmatic place…. doesn’t everyone?

• 52 handworn // Dec 9, 2009 at 10:35 am

  I hope they do leave the GOP, along with the “Southern fried moralists” as The Economist called them. Moderate independents like myself would move in (as I’m considering anyway) and turn it into a center-right party, which would drag the Democrats toward the middle too, I believe.

You must log in to post a comment.