On Dec 3, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Jim Straub wrote:
> I like the religion discussion happening. Many interesting and
> useful things being said. Many empty generalizations and baldly
> wrong things as well. For instance, Doug cited a study claiming
> the declining relevance of religion in US political life. Doug, I
> can offer you a very convincing bit of proof to the contrary: US
> political history for the past 10 years.
More than that, even. I was just recalling to Liza watching Pat
Robertson & Jim Bakker on my freshly installed cable TV in
Charlottesville, Va., in 1978, and thinking they were hilarious.
They had quite a run after that. But I didn't cite a study on the
declining relevance of religion; I quoted Gallup as saying that
religion had less prominence in the American mind than it did a few
decades ago. In 1952, 75% said religion was "very important" to them
in their daily lives; the latest reading is 57%, at the low end of
the last 30 years. Further, Gallup's Frank Newport writes:
> The most significant differences in self-reported importance of
> religion come at the extreme ends of the age spectrum. Less than
> half of Americans between age 18 and 29 say that religion is very
> important, while more than one-fifth say it is not important. By
> sharp contrast, more than 70% of those age 65 and older say
> religion is very important in their lives, while only 9% say that
> it is not important.
>
> There is little significant difference between 30- to 49-year-olds
> and 50- to 64-year-olds in self-reported importance of religion.
>
> As is usually the case when considering age, one is faced with
> considerations of a cohort versus generation effect. It is
> reasonable to assume that older Americans have functional or
> rational reasons for embracing religion, given that they have seen
> more of life's frustrations and sorrows, and that they are nearing
> life's endpoint of death. At the same time, data show that all
> Americans were more religious decades ago than they are now, making
> it reasonable to assume that those who are older today may have
> acquired their religion at an early age in a way that will not be
> duplicated as the current younger cohort of Americans ages.
The share of seculars doubled in the 1990s - why don't we hear more
about that?
> Doug also says white evangelicals are politically hopeless (I agree
> with most of what doug had to say besides these two points). But
> that's like saying the white working class is hopeless, or writing
> off workers who've voted Republican--- I know what you're saying
> and where you're coming from, but dispensing with extremely large
> segments of workers in the US is a meaningless exercise, of no use
> in organizing or politics.
Well I was exaggerating, but still, one's energy is limited, and I don't think it's promising to spend time trying to court people who vote 70% Republican. I mean trying to develop a mode of address tailored to them, not working with them if you're organizing them as workers, or should some of them get worried about global warming. In those situations, they could be friends.
Doug