This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← America loses faith with the God Squad?

America loses faith with the God Squad? - Comments

rrh1306's Avatar Comment 1 by rrh1306

It's true, the Republicans haven't been very successful of late playing the morality card. But judging by the fact that all of the prime Republican candidates for president are far right Jesus freaks (and Mormons). I would be surprised if they didn't fall back into the tried and true tactic of Religious wedge issues. We'll just have to wait and see how successful it is this time. I think the demographic that is actually swayed by that kind of transparent rhetoric is shrinking in America. Atleast I hope it is.

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:56:12 UTC | #601041

CarlaTrumper's Avatar Comment 2 by CarlaTrumper

Stevehill,

Very small case. Obama will win in '12. The American States with the ideological Governors have/are losing. The US is undergoing a sad state of affairs currently. What is being presented by our legislative branch of Gov't is appalling. It is nothing but ideology 101. Cutting a crumbling education system systematically under the guise of "budget crisis" (makes more room for charter/faith schools).

They may not have the numbers for a Presidential election, but they do have ways of screwing up (or keeping the same?) Middle America & the South.

The "coasts" are where you'll find the no-god squad hope and fight.

Democracy at it's finest. I wouldn't be on the look-out for the Super Secular America anytime soon. (Unfortunately) but we are trying. Thanks for the read, hadn't seen it yet.

Carla

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:17:43 UTC | #601050

Atheist Mike's Avatar Comment 3 by Atheist Mike

Didn't republicans win the midterm elections in the US last November? I don't want to sound pessimistic but shouldn't that be a better indication as to what the US next elections will look like?

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:29:39 UTC | #601058

Lifegiver's Avatar Comment 4 by Lifegiver

I don't think this is a good indication of who will win the next election. People seem to care more about all these social issues that republicans dominate with being the god party only when the economy is doing well. When a lot of people are unemployed, people's put less importance on all these issues and put more importance on the economy, budgets and things like welfare.

Also, like Atheist Mike mentioned, republicans just bashed the democrats in the midterms so that seems to be more of an indication of what will happen in two years. But this doesn't mean Obama is sure to lose, it just means that people should not take it for granted that he will win. I also think a good guess of who will win can be made once the republicans choose a candidate.

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:29:11 UTC | #601093

wcapehart's Avatar Comment 5 by wcapehart

"I believe they prefer to be called the 'Christian Union'"

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:40:01 UTC | #601102

rrh1306's Avatar Comment 6 by rrh1306

The party in power allways loses in the midterm elections. Americans have a short memory when it comes to politics. They vote one party in and if that party doesn't solve every problem in 2 years they get mad and vote in the other party that they thought sucked just two years ago. Clinton lost alot of democratic seats in the midterms and was re-elected, so it is possible.

Comment 3 by Atheist Mike :

Didn't republicans win the midterm elections in the US last November? I don't want to sound pessimistic but shouldn't that be a better indication as to what the US next elections will look like?

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:42:32 UTC | #601103

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 7 by Stevehill

@Lifegiver

Agreed. But Norman's point is that it is unusual for the opposition not to have a clear candidate by this stage in the process. That looks like floundering, and will soon start to look like torpid, vote-losing indecision.

Most governments are unpopular in the first couple of years: they try to get the unpleasantness out of the way early, so they can spend the next couple of years bribing their way back into the voters' favour.

I would read nothing into the mid-terms.

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:53:23 UTC | #601132

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 8 by Neodarwinian

Irrespective of the religious angle the Republican candidates are extremely weak and many. The democrats merely need to divide and conquer. Any tea party candidate in now will have much of the shine taken off him by the tome of the 2012 election when they start running up against the reality of how things truly get done in Washington.

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 01:48:52 UTC | #601165

Roger J. Stanyard's Avatar Comment 9 by Roger J. Stanyard

From this side of the Atlantic, the Republicans appear to have seriously lost the plot and turned into a dysfunctional party driven by crackpot ideology rather than pragmatism.

The big money knows it: "The latest figures at OpenSecrets.Org show that of the 50 industries who make the largest contributions, only 8 are giving most of their money to Repugs. The other 42 are giving over half their money to Dems.

The Teabaggers have turned the Repug Party into an ideological crusade, and ideological crusades are bad for business. "

Source: Lenny Flank.

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:56:53 UTC | #601326

ConnedCatholic's Avatar Comment 10 by ConnedCatholic

Comment 1 by rrh1306 :

I think the demographic that is actually swayed by that kind of transparent rhetoric is shrinking in America. Atleast I hope it is.

Lets hope that it is generally shrinking amongst all humanity. It damn well ought to be.

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:47:30 UTC | #601572

Sample's Avatar Comment 11 by Sample

The Republicans may not be able to field a compelling candidate but do they have to? I was surprised the columnist didn't offer another obstacle: the protestant "anyone but the incumbent" vote.

Mike

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:33:30 UTC | #601631

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Comment 12 by Rich Wiltshir

A wedge of hope?

On realising religion's declining value at the ballot box will their politics evolve to reason instead?

Could we be on the brink of seeing their true ethical values: career first, abandon what doesn't serve the career, even if it means abandoning the religoon they've been spouting about for so sodding long?

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:32:53 UTC | #601702

Lifegiver's Avatar Comment 13 by Lifegiver

@Stevehill

I don't think you can dismiss what happened in the past midterms. If the republicans had just won a couple of seat than maybe I would say don't read into it, but that's not what happened though. The republicans gained a large majority in the house and came pretty close to also winning the senate.

I do agree that it's weird that the republicans don't have a clear cut leader right now, but that's also because many of the people who would be a clear cut leader, like Gov. Chris Christy from NJ, are not running. So they are stuck with people like Gingrich, Huckabee, Palin, and maybe Trump. None of those candidates really excite anyone because they all bring baggage, especially Gingrich. That said though, it still doesn't mean the Obama will just sail into a second term. Republicans play politics a lot better than Democrats and they have been planning for this since the day Obama won. Plus Obama has also made the left upset by not doing many of the things he promised he would do.

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 22:38:48 UTC | #601705

HenkM's Avatar Comment 14 by HenkM

Republicans play the 'fear-factor' to its limits. Bush got away with it, and saddled the country with a tremendous deficit, which will take many generations to recover from. In the meantime blaming Obama for not having solved it yet. However, in concert with the theists: they play for fear. And, unfortunately, most people do not think. Anywhere. They follow someone who seems to talk in their language. They havent, as yet, copped on that it is a blatantly false language. Inspired only, nothing more, nothing less, than to fill the pockets of the already filthy rich. They also havent copped on that churches use the same language: be afraid. be very afraid. seek guidance. and seek that here!

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 23:05:29 UTC | #601716

raytoman's Avatar Comment 15 by raytoman

The Republicans now have control of the boundary changes in most of the key states that have to review them due to population changes,

The legal Gerrymandering that will ensue will basically enable Republicans to lock in votes in such a way that (say) 100,000 Republicans will have 5 delegates and 100,000 Democrats will have 2 or 3.

This should ensure majorities for Republicans in enough State Congresses and in the national delegate count for the next 12-20 years. It is all perfectly legal. The Democrat voters who refused to turn out in 2010 have ensured their own irrelevance for the next couple of decades.

Obviously Republicans are smarter and since Americans are particularly stupid, Democrats must be very stupid.

In the next Presidential election they could run someone who makes Reagan and G W Bush look smart, and still win. Obama supported all of GW Bushes' policies, ensured Wall St Bonuses and record profits over the past 2 years, gave tax breaks to millionaires and was an even more rabid supporter of the genocide of the Palestinians. The Republicans will have a task finding anyone more stupid to run against him. My bet is some TV Star (Glen Beck?, Arnie? Homer Simpson!)

Sun, 13 Mar 2011 01:21:57 UTC | #602139

jbyrd's Avatar Comment 16 by jbyrd

Id say that the only legit optimism would stem from whats happening in Wisconsin and Michigan.

The fact that the republicans are for the most part loons is not enough. They are united loons with tons of money, and good writers to create fallacious arguments & BS statistics.

Just look how many tea baggers that got elected into office this last term!!! And they make the republicans look sane. Not being an idiot is not a pre-requisite for getting elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTSCRoYyM-Y

Regardless, the legislative branch will likely belong to the republicans, or corporations, which effectively makes obama a lame duck. And even if thats not the case, Obama hasnt really impressed me with his bargaining abilities just yet. But then again, the Republicans are 100% against him, no matter what the issue.

Sun, 13 Mar 2011 03:07:15 UTC | #602151

Steve Hanson's Avatar Comment 17 by Steve Hanson

Is that, in part, because Obama has continued the unconstitutional faith based initiatives of his predecessor? Not that that's the only problem I had with Bush that Obama decided to keep going on in his administration. But since it seems all Republicans are fundamentalists these days, lest they risk being kicked out of the party, I don't have much of a choice. Hurray for the two-party system, I guess.

Sun, 13 Mar 2011 05:07:30 UTC | #602161

nancynancy's Avatar Comment 18 by nancynancy

You simply cannot predict elections so far into the future. Anything can happen between now and election day. If the US suffers a large scale terrorist attack or if some unforseen catastrophe happens, all bets are off.

Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:53:43 UTC | #602339

One Man Damned's Avatar Comment 19 by One Man Damned

I also think it is largely a generational issue. Younger people in the U.S. are, by and large, less religious and less conservative than their elders. Unfortunately, they don't vote in as great a number.

The cliche view of baby boomers is that they were all free love, flag burning hippies marching for civil rights when not rolling in the mud at Woodstock. In reality, only a small percentage of boomers were anywhere near that description. The vast majority were closer to the Archie Bunker worldview of their parents. Reactionaries like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and their ilk are probably closer to the more authoritarian mindset of the majority of boomers, hence their popularity with primarily an older demographic. Younger generations don't tend to share those views, but they also are not as involved in politics.

Taking the long-term view, not just for the next election but for the next couple of decades, if the country can muddle through without imploding until this demographic is no longer such a strong force in American politics, then things will be looking up considerably. In the meantime, things are going to be pretty bleak in my opinion. And younger generations are going to have their work cut out for them as far as rebuilding the country is concerned.

Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:44:01 UTC | #602381

ccw95005's Avatar Comment 20 by ccw95005

It's all about the economy, baby. If the economy continues its recovery, however slowly, Obama will win re-election. If the price of oil or anything else aborts the recovery, he may well lose. The whole idea that the US is turning away from religion is probably true, but it's a slow process, and won't be a significant factor in this election.

Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:48:07 UTC | #602426

CarlaTrumper's Avatar Comment 21 by CarlaTrumper

@raytoman "Obviously Republicans are smarter and since Americans are particularly stupid, Democrats must be very stupid."

In which country do you live in? I would love to hear Your idea's on what (exactly) makes Democrats "stupid" or repugs so smart? If most campaign $'s come from Corporations, how would You fix our so-called Democracy? (Democrats do not receive nearly as much corp. $) 1 person = 1 vote, subjective to which state you may be voting in (see statistics on 2000 elections). So your argument is Obama is the same as W? Take a look at what he accomplished in 2 years, then compare it to W.
Who "tried" to get things done? What you seem to not take into consideration would be the "fringe" group (teabags) that grew due to highly "scarey" issues called Healthcare Reform, DADT, New START, etc..(google the rest) You are correct that Dem's did not show up for the party in 2010, might that be caused by a disbelief that ANY of the nutjobs would get elected? Ever? Money talks, my friend, never as loud as after citizens united (conicidence?). See what Big Money can buy you, a one way trip to fighting the same fight as always and never visiting what a progressive future could bring. Please don't paint with one broad brush.

@ One Man Damned, "I also think it is largely a generational issue. Younger people in the U.S. are, by and large, less religious and less conservative than their elders. Unfortunately, they don't vote in as great a number."

You may want to do a search on what percentage of the population voted for Obama. If not for the youth he would not have won, old white and "baby booming" voters did not vote for Obama.

I have been out in the streets, at capitols, at Universities and I must disagree that the younger generations are not involved. Quite the contrary, they see what is happening and Want to change it. That, along with the more moderate voters and the "hippie" generation.

Young voters and Independents are the people who will decide this upcoming election, and they will not vote republican/teabag. They do not represent anything but dictators with bank accounts. And they are very good at putting the US back into the year 1776. I don't know about you, but I am putting my words into Actions, while it is still allowed.

If the "god-did-its/teabags" take over, then the rest of the world can laugh harder than they already are at us.

Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:51:18 UTC | #602605

raytoman's Avatar Comment 22 by raytoman

Dear Carla Trumper,

I said all americans were stupid and democrats have proved they are stupider than repubulicans. When anyone emigrates to the US, the average IQ of both countries increases!

Money buys votes in the US. Enough TV time and Homer Simpson COULD be elected President. Obama is forecast to have about 4 times the cash of his republican oppo (assuming the democrats run him again). The dems will probably waste that by buying in outside expertise (probably non citizens) whose messages will be misunderstood (you can't underestimate the intelligence of the average american voter (have you ever watched the US TV Evangalist Channels and Fox?)).

Obama can talk (especially thanking God and calling on HIM to bless america) but he has shown he is inept when even republican idiots can manipulate him. He's cutting entitlements for the disadvantaged so he can give tax breaks to the top few% of earners. He's now increasing incarceration and torture at Guantanamo, he's an even more rabid supporter of the genocide of the palestinians by Israel than GW Bush ever was, and he is about to be impeached by allowing the US Government to go Bankrupt on Friday 18th March.

The Republicans saw the crash coming and ran a crippled geriatric against Obama to ensure he won. Now they can save the day by getting rid of him, probably even before 2012. Stupid yes, but smarter than the democrats. Now, if they'd run Hilary Clinton instead.........

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:13:47 UTC | #602812

Tintern's Avatar Comment 23 by Tintern

It would be nice to think the Republicans and their religious nut-jobbery are losing momentum but from outside America it looks like Obama won the presidential election but the Republicans still set the agenda. The Democrats appear to be a bunch of crumb-snatching disunited losers who can be counted on to desert and betray and generally screw up anything Obama tries to get done in full. A bit simple perhaps but externally it really does look like anything but a decline for the Republicans, which is worrying. I fervently hope I'm wrong.

Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:00:27 UTC | #604371

_eric_'s Avatar Comment 24 by _eric_

@raytoman

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"?

It's way too late for you on this board, but, for future reference...

Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:32:45 UTC | #604805

CarlaTrumper's Avatar Comment 25 by CarlaTrumper

@raytoman

You sound like the "teabaggers" over here, seriously man, racist much (things would have been better with Hillary?) How so? Obama is not perfect, yep he says he believes in dOG, but hey at least he doesn't base his foreign policies on dOG. (W was/is a "born again" xtain who blessed and prayed about everything to do with being president, my how far we've come) he repealed DADT and has changed his position on gay marriage.

No, I do not watch faux news, nor do I watch evangelical tv (why?), while many may watch, they don't all agree. While you may find it entertaining or whatnot, when it comes time for an election the American people (youth, minorities, common sense people, etc.) will vote for the person, not the tv station (google repug canidates in US for 2012). The "crazies" numbers seem large in midterms, they are not when it comes to Presidental Elections.

As unfortunate as it is that you feel the way you do about the US, I can't say we need another person with "views" such as yours over here (on either side of the political fence).

".he is about to be impeached by allowing the US Government to go Bankrupt on Friday 18th March."

Really? For doing what, again? It's March 21st...... hmmm. Must of missed that one.

@eric,

Great quote, thanks : )

Carla

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:19:24 UTC | #605543

Hendrix is my gOD's Avatar Comment 26 by Hendrix is my gOD

Comment 22 by raytoman

Stupid yes, but smarter than the democrats. Now, if they'd run Hilary Clinton instead.........

She lost to Obama in the primary election. It's called democracy.

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:08:09 UTC | #605853

Teg's Avatar Comment 27 by Teg

Comment 3 by Atheist Mike :

Didn't republicans win the midterm elections in the US last November? I don't want to sound pessimistic but shouldn't that be a better indication as to what the US next elections will look like?

No. US midterm elections typically go to whichever party doesn't have the White House, regardless of whether the President ends up winning for a second term.

A surprising number of Americans are very indecisive. We tend to go back and forth a lot. Somehow we get stuff done in the long term anyway.

Thu, 12 May 2011 05:43:17 UTC | #626085

Teg's Avatar Comment 28 by Teg

Comment 9 by Roger J. Stanyard :

From this side of the Atlantic, the Republicans appear to have seriously lost the plot and turned into a dysfunctional party driven by crackpot ideology rather than pragmatism.

What a coincidence -- that's how they look from this side, too!

Thu, 12 May 2011 05:45:04 UTC | #626087