"Support for traditional family values has decreased?"  And on what basis do they associate that with the Democratic party?  They have adopted the Republican propaganda without any real thought.  I know many, many Democrats who are married, have children, are religious, believe in education, do their best to do everything for their family.  I know many, many Republicans, including some in public office, who definitely do not.  Unless we are going to narrow this down to some more narrow public policy issues, which some Republicans falsely term "family values," this is a totally unfair and inaccurate characterization.  Example: Does Newt Gingrich support family values?  Does Rudy Guiliani?  Just not in their own families?  If this is limited to the issue of gay rights, how about Dick Cheney?  If it's limited to protection of children, how about Mark Foley?
Look at the news conference with John and Elizabeth Edwards yesterday.  Did you see how she was looking at him, and how he was looking at her?  They have been married 30 years, raised a good strong family, overcoming tragedies and difficulties, and are obviously still very much in love.  And for that the Republicans call him a "faggot," to much laughter and scorn.  Who's in favor of family values, and who's manipulating the public with a few hot button issues that, in their own lives, they are very much on the other side of?

wasn't this topic brought up about the Democrats after 2000 and 2004?  Don't get your hopes up.  Conservatism will never go away and neither will the Republican party.  Beside, it is not best for the nation that there are at least two viable political parties.  Its not like everyone is suggesting Karl Rove lead the RNC for the next decade to "fix" the current state of affairs.  And didn't we learn that after the 2004 elections, again, one party dominance wasn't a good thing??? 

This Pew Poll is an extremely interesting snapshot of potential voter leanings. What does it mean in the short and medium term? How can progressives take advantage of it? Here is a posting that I made at a couple of sites a month ago. It was based on a variety of "values" polling done by assorted poll takers in recent months and years. I hope that re-posting it here may help illuminate some of the opportunities illustrated by this latest Pew Poll.

"As approval ratings for The Decider tumble to the low to mid-thirties (a CBS poll on Jan. 22, 2007 even dropped his approval rating down to 28 percent), is there any reason to think that they can drop much further, into the low twenties or even down to the teens?

Probably not.

Even if The Decider were to sprout horns, fangs, and a forked tail, his True Believers would remain convinced that he is the Chosen One.

The absolute floor for his support is approximately 30 percent, the carefully assembled Rovian Hard Core. Here is why:

--35 percent of Americans (and 67 percent of Republicans) still think that invading and occupying Iraq was a good idea

--35 percent approve of the use of torture against insurgent or terrorist suspects

--67 percent (or even 74 percent, depending on the poll) of Republicans think that Bush's troop "surge" to escalate the war in Iraq is a good idea

--30 percent of Americans think that Big Business has the right amount of influence (22 percent) or too little influence (8 percent) on the Bush Administration

--29 percent disapprove of interracial marriage

--32 percent consider themselves to be "born-again" Christians

--25 percent think that the Rapture/Second Coming will occur in 2007

--24 percent think that automatic assault weapons should continue to be sold to the public

--20 percent (and 81 percent of evangelical fundamentalists) believe the creationists' literalist dogma that God created the entire cosmos 6,000 years ago

--37 percent think that the teaching of creationism (or the latest version, Intelligent Design) should replace the teaching of evolution

--17 percent think that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest

--39 percent admit to harboring prejudice against Muslims

--27 percent of Illinois voters cast ballots for the certifiably extremist Alan Keyes rather than for Barack Obama in 2004

--74 percent (yes--three-fourths!) of Republican voters and an astonishing 84 percent of Republican members of Congress deny that human release of greenhouse gases causes global warming

These polls reflect what Karl Rove has spent his life creating: a rock-solid base of credulous gun-totin', SUV-drivin', Bible-thumpin', Rapture-awaitin', ignorance-embracin', global-warming-denyin', evolution-dismissin', science-rejectin', contraception-and-abortion-rights-opposin', tolerance-refusin', gay-bashin', Constitution-shreddin', civil rights-denyin', Bill-of-Rights-ignorin', anti-race-mixin', Confederate-flag-displayin', Fox-News-believin', Rush-Limbaugh-admirin', foreigner-despisin', Muslim-demonizin', militia-joinin', perpetual-war-lovin', torture-approvin', war-and-oil-profit-cheerin', robber-baron-servin', Fuehrer-enablin' social conservatives.

These poll numbers largely, though not perfectly, overlap. Some abortion foes will feel even more strongly about the loss of life resulting from the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq. Some gun enthusiasts will feel strongly about protecting the environment and curbing global warming. Some viewers of the Foxist Noise Channel will have doubts about skewing economic and tax policies primarily for the benefit of big business and the wealthiest one percent.

All the same, no matter what blunders he makes, The Decider will still have an unshakeable Rovian Base approving of his actions. It is clearly possible for Rove and the Foxist Noise machine to fool 30 percent of the people 100 percent of the time. They can also fool an additional 5 percent of the voting public almost all of the time.

They have faith, you see, in the righteousness of his cause.

However, Rove's effort to apply his Texas-based political formula of divide-and-rule to the whole country has left fully 65 percent of the population within the reality-based universe.

The 18th century Enlightenment philosopher and deist Voltaire once wrote in a letter:
"I always made one prayer to God, which is extremely short. Here it is: 'O my God, make our enemies quite ridiculous!' God granted it."

Thanks to Karl Rove, the same prayer seems to have been answered today for the pragmatists and progressives in the reality-based community.

Of course, in some areas the unreachable Rovian Hard Core will amount to more than a majority. But even in the Deep South, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, and Idaho there will be the odd Congressional seat or local urban election that can be competitive for a Democratic pragmatist or even a progressive. Consider, for example, Rocky Anderson, the progressive mayor of Salt Lake City. And in the rest of the country there are increasingly bright prospects for Democratic sweeps.

Karl Rove has ensured that the Republican Party has adopted the values and antebellum outlook of the Deep South, thereby turning it into more of a regional party than a national one. Rove has handed pragmatists and progressives a historic opportunity elsewhere.

Can they seize it?  Can they organize the reality-based community--fully 65 percent of the voting public?"

Your post nails it--- "it" being a good description of where the United States is politically at this time in history. The Rovian hard core of Know Nothings will not crack in this generation, and, as conservatives have righteously noted, the patriarchal hard core tends to out-breed everyone else, so they assume their point of view will ultimately prevail (if the Rapture doesn't arrive first) based on sheer numbers. 

However, I think the rising generation will be less conservative as a whole, despite how carefully they were raised. Too many of them have gay friends, too many know a wounded but ignored veteran not to have questions, and it is up to the local Democratic committees to pick off the crumbling edges of the hare core constituencies voter by voter. 

Of course, that assumes the Democrats get their story together in a coherent and timely fashion.  That means the successful presentation of a Democratic philosophy (or story) of governance and public life which counters the dominant Republican philosophy of jungle capitalism, social Darwinism, authoritarian leadership, and Life as a Struggle with the affluent being self-evidently beloved of God and obviously superior to the rest of humanity. That particular philosophy has been termed Hobbesian, and is comfortably historic so folks are used to it.  The Democrats (like our Founding Fathers) had a viewpoint based more on Locke than Hobbes, and it still, after 230 years, represents change and requires of people that they behave like adults, not children, in their political life.

Now is when we need it most.

I was having this conversation with a fellow progressive today, who had been talking to a mother who disapproved of her own daughter having taken part in the anti-war protest at Chantilly High.  My friend talked about a certain percentage of the population being delusional. 

Or sometimes it's stupidity.  I remember reading how Americans responded to knowledge polls and agreed to answers like "Consumer Reports is the government agency whose approval sticker you see on meat packages at your grocery store."

Nice posting.  I loved the statistics.

Eisenhower provided a reasonable, moderate model for governance.

Even Nixon was socially progressive, intelligent, and strategically adept, though in the end too paranoid and criminal to survive.

Reagan had a certain grace and capacity to inspire--at least until he went over the Iran-Contra edge.

Gerald Ford was a sensible human being.

Even Goldwater was at his core a tolerant human being who wanted limited government.

Why on earth has the Republican Party done this to itself--this lurch to delusion, authoritarianism,  and medieval, willful ignorance?

Beats me, and I used to be a Republican.

...my only perspective is that the civility and comity of politics back then was quite different.  It's hard to be centrist anymore and it's difficult to see how attacking anyone's faith is going to chnage a sea of red back to blue.  Logic (and experience) says it has the opposite effect.

The Republicans in Virginia, especially in the State House, are precisely the kind of deranged, intractable, reactionaries that are going to push the Republican party into the minority for the rest of the 21st century.

We can only encourage them in their mad dash for the cliff, and push... hard.

buh, bye... you won't be missed.

We need to reject and disprove the Republican script that all Democrats are secular humanist, Godless, etc.  Many lived through and participated in the Civil Rights movement, in which religious values were pivotal.  Intolerance is not a family value!

They obviously don't know us. I just came from a conservative blog where they were looking at this same report, and fearing the horrible future where the liberals Democrats start the anti-Christian totalitarian society.

I wish this were a joke, but it is not. This is what they were saying.

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has enlightened positions on such issues as serving the poor, questioning disastrous military actions, and addressing Global Warming. The intolerant medievalists, such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, are currently taking the NAE to task for paying attention to the Global Warming issue, for in Dobson's view, doing so detracts from his movement's anti-gay. anti-choice (i.e., "family values" as defined by him) agenda.

There is clearly room for issue-by-issue collaboration between progressive Democrats and NAE members who share similar concerns.

No one is forcing Dobson and his Focus on the Family acolytes to be compassionate and inclusive toward gays and lesbians, and no one is forcing anyone in Dobson's family to have an abortion or accept any benefits from stem cell research. No one is forcing Dobson to vote for a Democrat. And no one will expect him ever to adopt a "live and let live" approach to others. But, fortunately, Dobson and his followers are a declining minority who will remain unable to impose their minority, premodern views on everyone else.

The Pew Study cited here by Josh and above by Lowell demonstrates to the Dobsons, Jerry Falwells, and Pat Robertsons that they are losing ground, and of course they are angry. For more insight, we should go to Prof. Robert Altemeyer's "Right Wing Authoritarianism" and John Dean's "Conservatives without a Conscience." (Both, by the way, were participating today in a very interesting thread over at DailyKos.com. Check out the Mid-Day Thread if it is still there.)

There does seem to be a clear link between religious fanaticism and authoritarianism. I suspect that here lies the main reason that Rudy Giuliani is doing so well in the polls even among those on the Religious Right. They may not share his personal values, but they are willing to fall in step behind his authoritarian personality.

This religious fanatic-authoritarian link would probably be worth a book in itself. Remember what the German soldiers had inscribed on their belt buckles in World War II as they set out to conquer the world for Hitler: "Gott Mit Uns" (God is with us). And consider the Jihadists who fully expect to go to heaven if they die as martyrs for their political cause.

Winning hearts and minds requires that they see evidence that these horrific scenarios aren't true and they need to be convinced with evidence to the contrary.  Unfortunately, that never seems to manifest itself while highlighted stories and blogs attacking their faith and promising to eradicate all religion from American life are all that's available in the media.  When stories of more funding for the homeless are overshadowed by the ACLU ripping some student for wearing a tiny cross around her neck, you have to wonder who's running this railroad.  Over 91 percent of people in this country profess to believe in some organized faith. You certainly don't win the middle by attacking the fringe.  And you do even more damage redefinig the middle as the fringe.  There's a reason that map of the US is so red and turning it blue means a change in message and tone. 

Detcord:

You have a good point. One needs to be careful about evidence, as well as about offending the middle.

Could you provide a good link to your reference to the "ACLU ripping some student for wearing a tiny cross around her neck?" I did a GOOGLE search, but it just came up with some bombast from Bill O'Reilly of Fox News and no verifiable story providing any context. I, for one, am deeply skeptical about anything that Bill O'Reilly says, and I certainly wouldn't accept at face value his take on any alleged "fact." In the reality-based community we should be especially careful about such "facts."

I doubt that either the reality-based or the faith-based communities will win many converts from the other side. But I do think that we are seeing a gradual generation-by-generation change. Europe seems to be ahead of the U.S. in the transformation. Perhaps that is what happens after a century of horrendous conflict, including two World Wars, in which each participant claimed that God was on its side.

Here is a link to some interesting polling data from Harris and Pew to compare what is happening in Europe and in the U.S.

http://humaniststudi...

The Pew data on U.S. "Generation Nexters" may reveal a trendline: 20 percent consider themselves "no religion/atheist/agnostic" and 63 percent accept the scientific evidence behind evolution. Today in the UK only 35 percent of the overall population considers itself religious. In France, it is only 27 percent. I recently lived for a few years in a European country in which there are more self-described athiests/agnostics than regular church-goers.

I personally see no contradiction between belief in a Supreme Being and an acceptance of the scientific method to reveal underlying laws of nature. Hard-line atheists and evangelical literalists seem to be compelled to argue about such things, but even the Vatican has accepted the validity of the science behind evolution.

The Founders, many of whom (like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin) were deists who rejected the theological trappings of organized religion, gave us a wisely crafted foundation of religious freedom, which goes hand-in-hand with a separation of church and state. We have been given a secular, but religiously tolerant republic.

Can we preserve it from the fundamentalists and theocrats?

"We have been given a secular, but religiously tolerant republic.  Can we preserve it from the fundamentalists and theocrats?"
Yes, but only if we acknowledge the obvious fact that there are many, many religious people who do not agree with the intolerance of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson.  Democrats can appeal to voters on broader social and moral issues than the narrow hot button issues that the Republicans incorrectly label "family values."  Democrats actually started way ahead on these issues through the Civil Rights movement and the War on Poverty.  However, Democrats are at risk of losing an important part of THEIR base if they equate religious beliefs with right wing viewpoints.  This is a false Republican talking point, and it would be a tragedy if the Democrats of all people adopted it without reflection.
The Republicans are in the process of proving that they cannot be a "big tent" party, because so much of their political strategy is based on hatred and division, pitting one group against another.  That works for awhile, then falls apart as people realize they are being used, and that they have mutual interests.  In contrast, as the party of tolerance and inclusiveness, the Democrats have the ability to unite a broad range of communities interested in positive change.

...since those of us who have a deep belief don't see this in political terms as many others do.  It is neither Liberal nor Conservative to believe that something is wrong based on one's faith.  When did that become a political judgement?  It seems from where I sit that those screaming "intolerance" are frequently the least tolerant among us by quickly condemning people of one faith while asking for tolerance and diversity for other faiths.  How is that "tolerance."  Are we (again) confusing and conflicting "tolerance" with "approval?" Is demonizing Falwell/Robertson/Dobson going to convince anyone to vote differently?  Never has...never will.  Let's not take our eye off the ball.

...in my humble opinion.  Most Christians worldwide today see Darwin's theory as compatible with both the fossil record and with Christianity. There seems to have been a loss of memory since 1950. That's when the Roman Catholic Church officially acknowledged that the theory of evolution was not in conflict with Christian doctrine (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis). Most of the early famous scientists were also Christian like Copernicus and Galileo whose findings also went against Church doctrine as it existed during their time. The problem, Christians began to see, was not with science, nor with the Bible, but with improper interpretations of the Bible, for example, forcing it to be literal when it should have been taken figuratively or phenomenologically (i.e., describing events as they appear from a human perspective, like the "rising" of the sun).  The U.S. will never be a theocracy but the vision of an American without a religious foundation forming it's moral foundation is a chilling and frightening thought to many of us.

You might want to take a look sometime at:
http://www.religious...

It's a section of a website that overall is dedicated to discussing religious differences, and it talks here about attempts to study, e.g., prejudice and its correlation with religiousness.

I was struck by the discussion of Allport, the psychologist, who set up two general categories of religious belief:

I  Intrinsic religious belief:
views God as loving, supportive, forgiving.
views each person as unique and special.
inclusive in vision; views all people as their neighbors
views death positively
looks upon religion as a search for truth
numerically small
exhibit low levels of prejudice.

II  Extrinsic religious belief:
views God as stern, vindictive and punitive.
views people in terms of social categories: sex, age, status.
exclusionist in vision; views their in-group as their neighbors
views death negatively
looks upon religion for its utilitarian value, as a means to other ends.
***

Personally, I have experienced no correlation between moral character and formal religious belief, e.g., church going.  I know many very good and very bad people in and out of the formal religion camp.  I do sometimes find that people hung up on all the rules of a religion miss the focus of what the religion is supposed to be about.

There's another study mentioned on that site whose conclusion is:

+People who never attended church exhibited a low level of prejudice.
+The most highly prejudiced individuals were those who went to church once or twice a month.
+Those who went to church 11 or more times a month were the least prejudiced of all.

I'm wandering here, but I just wanted to make the argument that many of the people I've most admired for their kindness were spiritual people who had just concluded that it did not make sense going to a church that preached it had a monopoly on the truth when the main causal factor behind a person's formal religious beliefs were what their parents beliefs were.  The odds of becoming southern Baptist having been raised in Bejing are pretty low.  I have a serious problem when someone says that, e.g., Religion A is the only way to salvation.  So I look for in a person a spiritual nature that is not necessarily what other people define as "religious."

And I think some credence has to be given to the Richard Dawkins view that he is saddened when people say it is only fear of hell that makes people behave well.

 

...then only you can fix it.  It's why they call it "faith."  You either do, or you you don't.  You have to question the purpose behind any study designed to specifically attack the spiritual beliefs of any group of people.  Don't really understand why anyone would want to do that.  Did this study include Buddhists?  They're in a temple quite regularly and most of the monks I knew in Cambodia I'd hardly call "prejudiced."  Do you mean racially prejudiced?  See what I mean?  The whole thing sounds goofy.  A reference would be helpful in understanding who did this and why. 

The religious "foundation" is simply the Judeo-Christian ethics our country was founded upon and upon which most of our laws are predicated.  There's a great tour in D.C. now that goes around the city and points out the importance of faith in the development of our country.  I'm still looking for the specifics to post. 

but just to see if there was a correlation with churchgoing.  Doing a study across all religions would be very difficult, given language differences and religious traditions.

Again, I don't equate faith with churchgoing, or ethics with either.  That's just my experience.  I could cite lots of personal examples where faith, churchgoing, and ethics did not match.  I had an aunt who was a very good person, would never harm a fly, and prayed often, but never went to church.  She didn't see the point.  That's an old philosophy one can trace to the Gnostics (and probably as far back as history goes), who believed the link to God was from the self and was personal.  The debate between those who follow institution-directed religion, and inner directed religion, has been going on forever.  So perhaps Allport was not even in the ballpark in terms of the questions he should have been asking. (Allport is a famous academic; I'm pretty sure you can find the specifics on line.)

But to me faith can, and must be, instructed by evidence.  I just don't buy the notion that "I believe it and therefore it's true."  Our religious literature contains earthly prejudices and falsifications.  Here's an example.  One of the primary reasons given against ordaining women is a verse from St. Paul, that women should keep silent in church.  The argument against it that it is a later insertion by someone with an ax to grind.  I find that pretty convincing.  The "silence" verse doesn't fit in the chapter, and the earliest biblical manuscripts show that verse in different places, suggesting it was being inserted after the fact and was not part of the original letter.  There are other examples that can be cited about textual manipulation to disfavor women.  (It is well known among academics that lots of the canon attributed to Paul were forgeries.)

Also, if we were created in God's image, the traditional Christian view, we're supposed to think.  (Jesus taught in parables, after all, and many are hard to interpret.)  Otherwise, we're just parrots.  In fact, one of the great myths of Christian history is that Christianity was doctrinally set as soon as the apostles started teaching.  In fact, Peter and Paul couldn't even agree whether the Gentiles were to be taught.  The ideas behind the Trinity were not settled for many years.  There was a huge contest of ideas -- unfortunately, the majority leaders ordered the documents representing the minority views destroyed.  (Luckily, not all of them were and some have been recovered.)

And quite frankly, I don't want to be part of a religion that treats women or any class in an inferior way, and many of the mainstream religions do.  I really don't need an academic study to inform me that some Christian denominations (and other major religions), e.g., treat women like second class citizens.  I'll take the post-death consequences of my belief.  My hunch is that whatever, whomever was behind the universe's creation (if there was such a creator) wants everyone treated fairly. 

...never to debate belief with non-believers.  There's no common ground.  Regardless, may God bless you and this great nation.

I appreciate your wise analysis. I've been intending to buy Dawkins' book and give it a good read. Now you've motivated me to go out and get it.

I, too, have found no connection between ethical behavior and religious belief. Of course, we would probably have to define out terms, i.e., exactly what is "ethical" behavior. But that is a lengthy thread for another time and place. I have found, though, that to a surprising extent, across cultures, religions, and non-religious systems of thought, what is regarded as ethical behavior has far more in common than not in common. You don't need a religion to arrive at Kant's Categorical Imperative. Every religion seems to have its version of the Golden Rule.

Even today's Republicans have their own version: "He who has the gold, rules."

Dawkins' book is a good read -- you can also see a long tape of him online, lecturing and answering questions in Lynchburg from 11/06

Good questions from the fundamentalists, too, at the Dawkins lecture, and I congratulate their teacher for bringing them to his lecture

Yes, defining what is ethical behavior can be tricky -- but I think we can agree that burning someone at the stake because they disagree is a no no --

I'm a silly moderate who tries to look at things somewhat objectively so I'm not as quick to dismiss O'Reilly without checking his stuff.  He's actually got a decent research staff which explains why he's so successful.  That said, none of this came from him but I think I mixed two cases I was thinking about when posting - the first was the Brenda Nichol case from PA a few years ago but I think it was her employer that suspended her for the tiny cross around her neck.  The other was the ACLU going after the little tiny cross on the L.A. city seal.  Point on both though is this stuff gets sensationalized to demonstrate the assault on people of faith.  Winning back voters means being a bit more sensitive to this reality.

You make a good point. The press does tend to sensationalize these hot-button issues when they crop up.

I believe strongly in the separation of church and state, but sometimes I think that the hardline separatists need to loosen up a bit and not fight every little battle.

I just wish that the issue of religious faith could remain within one's own conscience, one's family, and one's own church (or synagogue, or temple, or mosque, or stupa), and not be pushed into the political arena.

I wish that in the political arena we could worry about doing what we can in this very real world to improve life before death, rather than be drawn into debating moral absolutes and eschatological issues.