Politics & God

Using the General Social Science Survey and the GOD and POLVIEWS variables….

This entry was posted in data and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Politics & God

  1. BobbDobbs says:

    There is a libertarian argument against having the government involved in the marriage business at all — other than an enforcer of contracts.

    If you reject the libertarian position and insist that there is a role for government encouraging certain behaviors through marriage policy, then everything is on the table, including sexual orientation.

  2. Bob_R says:

    Katherine – Congratulations! You must be really smart to have become a neuroscientist AND an expert in discretization of nonlinear partial differential equations and parameter identification and stability in nonlinear systems. Because that’s just the start of what anyone who claimed to “know their shit” about AGW would have to know. But of course, anyone who “knew their shit” would not stoop to arguing from authority. And, also of course, if someone didn’t really understand the mathematics behind the research in climatology, then someone who argued like a politician rather than a scientist would tell him or her to “shut the fuck up.”

  3. Grant Canyon says:

    Karl Lembke :

    I disagree.I believe there are good reasons to oppose same-sex marriage (SSM). (N.B.: I call it “same-sex marriage” because gays have just as much of a right to marry as “breeders” do. They just can’t violate the definition of marriage, which involves opposite-sex pairings.)

    That’s nothing more than putting the rabbit in the hat. The question at issue is what should constitute the definition of marriage (since it is unavoidably malleable). It is not a given.

  4. Karl Lembke says:

    Ryan K.:Mr. Lembke, one must also ask about marriage in terms of heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children/adopt. What is the point of marriage between these two people then and why would they be allowed to enter into it? The entire purpose of marriage surely cannot be procreation, can it?

    “First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes three in a baby carriage.” — schoolyard chant

    Reproduction may not be the entire purpose, but it is a major one. And not just procreation on a biological level, but procreation on a societal level. The nuclear family is most people’s first and most enduring exposure to social interaction, the notion of rules of conduct, and all those things that combine to create an orderly society. Again, I submit the nuclear family is the nucleus around which society forms. We’ve seen that the “standard model” — at least one of each sex, and apparently preferably only one of each sex — produces viable societies.
    Maybe it will turn out that stable societies will form around same-sex marriages, and the world has merely been waiting for some brave people to try it. But given millenia of opportunity, the apparent lack of a successful that has actually pulled it off seems, to me, telling.

    As for “the point” of marriages between couples who don’t intend to have children: I think that’s somewhat of a red herring. It represents a change of subject from “marriage” to “one particular marriage”. That some people may enter into a marriage with no intention of raising children does not mean that reproduction becomes irrelevant.

    In another area, one of the ongoing arguments about gun control has been whether hunters and recreational shooters could indulge their hobbies given a particular set of restrictions on the books. Such arguments constitute a red herring because the Second Amendment is not intended to preserve a right to hunt, or to plink away at targets on a range. The Second Amendment was intended to preserve the right of the people to self defense, against criminals and against an oppressive, out-of-control government.
    Now, most gun owners never use their guns in a self-defense situation. Virtually none have yet had to bear arms against an over-reaching government. This not mean that the Second Amendment is irrelevant, or that hunters and gun collectors sacrifice their right to own guns, merely because they’re not, at this moment, exercising the “proper” use of arms as intended by the Framers.

    Any gun owner contributes to the existence of a society capable of defending itself against oppression, and any married couple contributes to the existence of a society that crystallizes around a nuclear family.

  5. Ryan K. says:

    I can’t see it as a red herring because you are using that exact, particular circumstance (in reference to one type of marriage) to revoke the rights of millions of people. Not exactly a classy act.

    As for Mr. Dobbs comment about libertarianism vs. encouraging certain behaviors–I certainly believe if confronted directly with this question American would reject such intervention.

    Furthermore, the Constitution prevents the government from intruding into our personal lives without significant justification–I fail to see one in the issue of SSM. Freedom should be our primary concern, it’s the whole point of the country.

    I defer to those who say it better than I:

    “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour(sp) to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
    –Thomas Jefferson

    “America wasn’t founded so that we could all be better. America was founded so we could all be anything we damned well pleased.”
    –P. J. O’Rourke”

  6. Ryan K. says:

    Mr. Lembke, “Any gun owner contributes to the existence of a society capable of defending itself against oppression, and any married couple contributes to the existence of a society that crystallizes around a nuclear family.”

    Okay, moving to the 2nd Amendment is certainly a Red Herring and not a contested point. Your assumption is that marriage contributes to a ‘society that crystallizes around a nuclear family’. Exactly where in America do you live, Sir? The nuclear family came and went long before Equal Marriage Rights became an daily issue of discussion. The society that you think marriage contributes to doesn’t exist, and denying equality to others will not cause it to be so once more. Just because gay people can marry does not mean that families will stop existing, or children will stop being produced, or that society will cease to exist–by far the greatest of your straw men. I know many GLBT couples who live in *families* raising Children.

    Your argument simply holds no truth. Please, just come out and say you disagree with homosexuality (like me disagreeing with the sky being blue) out of a personal or religious conviction. That would be far more honest of you.

  7. Ryan K. says:

    Also, Mr. Dobbs, exactly which set of behaviors should the government encourage, and who get’s to decide? What faction of our society gets the say in our society’s legislation? If Christian belief, which flavor. It just won’t work in a *Free* society, that is, if we still are one.

  8. Brent says:

    A Hermit:

    The graph doesn’t show the relative incidence of those categories of religious belief in the general population, just the incidence of political beliefs in those subgroups. That is, 100% of atheists is plotted the same as 100% of devout believers, without showing their relative prevalence.

  9. Travis says:

    You’re not arguing, Ryan K., you’re proselytizing. Apparently, in your view, anyone who disagrees with you has no basis for said disagreement besides their own ignorance and dishonesty. What would be the point in trying to engage you in debate? You don’t appear to be interested in discovery through disagreement, but in crushing dissent. You’re as bad as the overzealous religionists you seem to detest. I sincerely hope you don’t become a prominent voice on this site.

    How on earth did a graph on the correlation between religious belief and political leanings end up here in the first place?

  10. Gerry Shuller says:

    Interesting graph, but I wish the Y-axis label was more descriptive.

  11. David says:

    The same chart with the data normalized.

  12. M. Simon says:

    I believe in lots of rights not enumerated. I think that is allowed. At least as the Constitution is written. See Amendment IX.

  13. Ickenham says:

    The original graph, comment #2, and the normalized graph linked to in comment #61 contain five instances of “Extremeley” [sic]. These ought to be corrected in any future editions of the graph to read “Extremely”


    Offered in the friendliest of spirits,

    – Ickenham

Comments are closed.