Creationism in Politics: Growing or Fading?

THIS is a subject we’ve dealt with before, e.g.: Creationism in Politics: Time for Benign Neglect? It may at first seem off topic for us, but when you step back a moment you’ll realize that the only topic that really matters here is the political strength of the anti-science elements in society. Were creationists content to mind their own business and peacefully enjoy their private realities, The Controversy between evolution and creationism wouldn’t exist.

Therefore we present you some excerpts from Evangelicals’ political clout: real or imagined?, which appears an the Washington Post website. It’s by Steven Brint, who is introduced as follows:

Every election cycle the political power of evangelicals and the Christian Right seems to come under fresh scrutiny. But what is the actual impact of the group’s excellent mobilization efforts. Steven Brint, professor of sociology and associate dean of the College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences at the University of California, Riverside, provides some insight. …

When we discuss the religion-politics nexus, we do so reluctantly. That’s because the articles we quote often mention the proclivities of specific denominations and sects, which makes us uneasy. Our principal focus here is on science, not denominational disputes. But in retail politics this kind of thing is inevitable, so here it comes. The bold font was added by us:

Evangelical Protestant denominations accounted for 85 percent of all U.S. churches in 1860, according to the historian Mark Noll. Today, evangelicals represent about 25 percent of the U.S. adult population, a distinct minority in a landscape populated not only by Catholics (who rival them in numbers), mainline Protestants, and Jews — but also increasing numbers of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others.

That’s the way professional politicians think about things — segmentation of voters into interest groups, whose grievances they exploit in seeking votes. They seek out and exacerbate latent divisions in society. Let’s read on:

Even so, it often seems like evangelicals have attained unprecedented strength, as evidenced by their raucous support for Sarah Palin on the 2008 campaign trail and their sometimes rowdy turnout in town hall meetings to protest health care reform as a prelude to socialism and death panels. Since the West Virginia textbook protests of the 1960s, white evangelicals have shown that they will demonstrate loudly against social policies they reject.

The Washington Post doesn’t like Sarah Palin. And they think the town hall protests against health-care legislation are the work of “white evangelicals.” We continue:

Why has the politically diverse mass of white evangelicals (30 percent still think of themselves as Democrats) provided so many recruits for the Christian Right? Social factors help to explain it. Evangelicals experience feelings of moral elevation due, in part, to the strictness of the theological doctrines they profess.

Creationism and “moral elevation” are not exactly compatible in our experience. Notice that 30 percent who still linger in the Democrat party? They’re the residue from the creationist-populist glory days when William Jennings Bryan was their leader. Moving along:

Moreover, they are nominally members of the dominant racial and religious groups in American society, yet they perceive themselves as ignored or marginalized by the culture. The reservoir of frustration created by these circumstances runs deep and wide.

Not only deep and wide, but when stirred up, creationists can also be ugly. Here’s more:

Evangelicals find the nation continuously beset by social problems, many stemming from changes in sexual freedoms, gender and family relations, and the raising of children. They identify the secularization of society as the root cause of these problems.

Secularization is the big enemy of the Discoveroids. See their Wedge strategy. Another excerpt:

In spite of its impressive capacity to mobilize evangelicals, the Christian Right has made relatively few lasting impressions on post-sixties American society. Women’s rights and gay rights have continued to gain ground, as have women and gay candidates for office. Intelligent design has failed to displace evolution at the center of science teaching, and, indeed, both the educational objectives and curriculum of Christian school looks quite a bit like those of public schools.

Ghastly collection of issues. One last excerpt:

The lesson is that American society is, above all, an arena of secular legal authority, pluralistic competition for power, and a consumer marketplace. Religious conservatives have been shaped by these realities far more than they have been able to shape them. … Where they have been successful, they have done it, ironically, by becoming more a part of the secular world.

That’s an overly-optimistic view of things. Or is it that after so much dumpster-diving at creationist websites, your Curmudgeon has become too pessimistic? Time will tell.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Creationism in Politics: Growing or Fading?

  1. Morally elevated my a##!!! Bunch of hypocrites more like! They rail against abortion and then b#tch about welfare moms who can’t afford their kids. They expect women to be virgins when they get married, yet how many fundagelical leaders get caught with prostitutes, or having affairs, or engaging in shinanigans with gay men? They preach about being Christ like, and then hoard things and money, which is TOTALLY against the teachings of Christ who expected people to give their stuff away and be humble to get to the kingdom of heaven.

    Humph! The audacity.

  2. Gabriel Hanna

    They rail against abortion and then b#tch about welfare moms who can’t afford their kids.

    Because welfare moms couldn’t possible be expected to use any sort of birth control, which is readily available and inexpensive everywhere, or think about the consequences of they do before they do it? Maybe they’re all reproducing by some kind of involuntary parthenogenesis.

  3. Gabriel Hanna

    My dear wife and I, right now, cannot afford to have children without going on welfare. Consequently, we do what it takes to not have children, until we are in a position to take care of them ourselves. We do without a lot of things we can’t afford.

    My sisters and I grew up in places where there were families on their third or fourth generation of welfare. Subsidize something and you get more of it-that’s Econ 101, or should be.

  4. LRA, don’t you know the Ten Commandments are optional for those that believe in them…

  5. Gabriel Hanna

    An iconic story; do follow the link; bolded parts are added by me:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92592545

    Nunez and most of her siblings and their spouses are unemployed and rely on government assistance and food stamps. Some have part-time jobs, but working is made more difficult with no car or public transportation.

    Low-income families in Ohio say they are particularly hard-hit by the changes in the economy, according to a new poll conducted by NPR, The Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard School of Public Health. Two-thirds of lower-income respondents, or 66 percent, say paying for gas is a serious problem because of recent changes in the economy. Nearly half of low-income Ohioans, or 47 percent, say that getting a well-paying job or a raise in pay is also major problem.

    Nunez, 40, has never worked and has no high school degree. She says a car accident 17 years ago left her depressed and disabled, incapable of getting a job. Instead, she and her daughter, Angelica Hernandez, survive on a $637 Social Security check and $102 in food stamps.

  6. Gabriel Hanna

    So what do we learn from that article? That there are families on at least their second generation of welfare; where neither wives nor husbands work, and in some cases NEVER have; that their government support has enabled them to become clinically obese as well as have children; and that in the economic downturn they might have to do without ice cream and buy less meat.

  7. Gabriel Hanna says: “So what do we learn from that article?”

    We learn that you are insensitive! Typical Darwinist. I say … Hope and change! Yes we can!

  8. Article says

    American society is, above all, an arena of secular legal authority, pluralistic competition for power, and a consumer marketplace.

    Hear hear, and long may it continue so!

    Curmudgeon ponders

    …after so much dumpster-diving at creationist websites, your Curmudgeon has become too pessimistic?

    It’s an occupational hazard: lie down with dogs and get up with fleas.

    It’s a dirty job, and I’m glad you’re doing it…

  9. Look folks, I’m just saying accidents happen. And I’d rather see a person get an abortion rather than be tricked by fundagelicals into thinking it will all be ok if the kid just gets born. No, it will not be ok. Kids are expensive. So fudies, make a choice. Either stop actively trying to prevent abortions or put your money where your mouth is and pay for the kids.

    Duh.

  10. LRA says: “Look folks, I’m just saying accidents happen.”

    Accidents? Accidents??? Typical Darwinist.

  11. Be nice Curmy! 😉

  12. comradebillyboy

    “Or is it that after so much dumpster-diving at creationist websites, your Curmudgeon has become too pessimistic? ”

    No you are not too pessimistic. Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for keeping the enemies of enlightenment at bay.

  13. comradebillyboy says: “Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for keeping the enemies of enlightenment at bay.”

    I like the sound of that.

  14. Gabriel Hanna

    Either stop actively trying to prevent abortions or put your money where your mouth is and pay for the kids.

    They DO pay for kids. They set up charities and adoption centers and hospitals. There’s no contradiction in opposing welfare AND abortion.

    Second, third, and fourth generations on welfare, in families where no one has EVER had a job, are not due to birth-control “accidents”.

    Should I be able to abort my grandmother if I can’t afford her long-term care? If I don’t want to abort my grandmother, does that mean I have to be in favor of forcing everyone else to pay her bills?