Beliefnet poll of evangelicals: More value environment over abortion?
posted at 8:12 pm on January 23, 2008 by Allahpundit
The right-wing atheist’s dream come true:
Generally speaking, however, evangelicals ranked traditionally progressive or Democratic causes as more important than traditionally conservative or Republican ones. Twenty three percent said their views had become less positive about Republicans, twice the number who said they’d soured on Democrats, though half of respondents said they had become less positive about both parties…
Combining those who labeled an issue “most important” or “very important,” the results were:
The economy (85%)
Cleaning up government (85%)
Reducing poverty (80%)
Improving public education/access to health care (78%)
Protecting the environment (70%)
Ending torture (68%)
Ending Iraq war (67%)
Ending abortion (61%)
Combating sex and violence in the media and entertainment (59%)
Illegal immigration (59%)
Stopping gay marriage (49%)
Helping Africa (48%)
Winning Iraq war (46%)
Fighting Islamic radicalism (58%)
Exit question: When does “Conservatives for Separation of Church and State” get founded?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Exactly,secular liberal Jews.
JiangxiDad on January 23, 2008 at 9:51 PM
@ nailinmyeye on January 23, 2008 at 9:43 PM
Would it be my right to vote for a person who thinks that you cannot attend church? Sure it is, but it isnt a smart idea.
muyoso on January 23, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Heh. I’m pretty familiar with one case that militates hard against that point of view. It all depends on what the parents actually want out of their kids’ private education. Do they want a real education or just an impressive brand name education?
Bryan on January 23, 2008 at 9:52 PM
When you’re TOO respectful, you get headlines like this one from England today:
‘Three Little Pigs CD’ Banned From Government-Backed Awards For Offending Muslims And Builders’
Igor R. on January 23, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Dinosaur got your tongue?
mred on January 23, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Well that’s what happens when you speak ill of the Old Testament at the Jewrassic Park.
Igor R. on January 23, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Isn’t this pretty much in line with the release of Jim Wallis’s book, “The Great Awakening,” that he promoted on Jon Stewart last night?
“The dominance of the religious right over our politics is finally over”
His website kinda makes me believe he had an agenda in this poll?!
Pam on January 23, 2008 at 9:59 PM
What does it sound like?
JiangxiDad on January 23, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Oy vey…
Igor R. on January 23, 2008 at 10:06 PM
They make that sound?
JiangxiDad on January 23, 2008 at 10:08 PM
What the hell is an “Evangelical”? Who gets to define the term. Is there a test or something?
I would guess most reporters would not pass the test but would be happy to grade the tests!
GEEEEZZZZZZZ!!
Nelsa on January 23, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Come on, I didn’t like the original statement so I made a sarcastic reply. At least it was meant to be sarcastic.
Igor R. on January 23, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Yeah? How much did the NEA pay for those results? Look I know that the market isn’t perfect, but I’d rather take my chances with the market than continue with the decrepit system we have, people should have the choice to opt out.
doubleplusundead on January 23, 2008 at 10:10 PM
No need to worry about me being too nice about the savages. Reasonableness is trying to get along with people, but it’s also admitting when co-existence isn’t possible. For instance, it is not reasonable to tell a battered woman to go back to her abusive husband and be nice.
thuja on January 23, 2008 at 10:11 PM
sorry
JiangxiDad on January 23, 2008 at 10:12 PM
I agree.
Igor R. on January 23, 2008 at 10:13 PM
No problem.
Igor R. on January 23, 2008 at 10:14 PM
It’s all just stupid. Most of these ‘evangelicals’ would have considered themselves merely Christians 2 years ago. But here we have the media elite determined to create a new class of people by asking them whether or not they are ‘evangelical Christians’ and then claiming that they are ‘self identifying’. Word games are interesting. Unfortunately if you are familiar with a courtroom, you know that such a statement that is ‘self described’ in print media would be LEADING THE WITNESS in a court of law.
It is another poll which means nothing, except it helps AP smear evangelicals again. Enjoy it AP, but I guarantee you that when you need help, you’ll prefer one of those ‘evangelicals’ over any other group of people.
The ‘evangelicals’ that I know are salt of the earth people who would give you the shirt off of their back if you were in need. Those are the types of people you are real big to disparage. . . You are right AP, we don’t need no more stinkin good people in this country. DOWN WITH EVANGELICALS said the ex-Catholic atheist.
ThackerAgency on January 23, 2008 at 10:16 PM
@ mred on January 23, 2008 at 9:56 PM
The instant I start naming things, you will catch me on a misstatement or a wrong word used, and will weasel out of the argument that way. Instead, I post links, which TONS of references which lead to more references which lead to more, etc. Go to youtube and watch a “debunking ID” video or two that professors put on there. You will see what standard science demands when claiming facts.
muyoso on January 23, 2008 at 10:17 PM
They go “BOOM” just after saying ” Allen Atthebar”
mred on January 23, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Are you quoting AlGore?
mred on January 23, 2008 at 10:20 PM
For many of us economic/national defense/libertarian conservatives, many of the evangelicals have been, quite frankly, kind of an embarrassment.
They have alienated the libertarian wing with many of their more stringent social policies and globaloney leanings, they have horrified the economic conservatives with that lame-brained “compassionate conservatism” pushed by both President Bush and Huckabee, and there is a growing “kumbaya” movement within the evangelical movement regarding a more liberal national defense posture.
Many of this stems from the growth of the megachurches and a lot more feel-good pap (aka “crap”) being fed into these giant congregations. In any case, this seems to flow back to the Carter-era “born-again” phenomenon. We seem to be seeing return to the evangelicals’ pre-Reaganite liberal stance of the 1970′s.
Quite honestly, many mainstream conservatives have been uncomfortable with the “marriage” and find this schism to be somewhat overdue. It will definitely damage the conservative movement, electorally.
TexasJew on January 23, 2008 at 10:21 PM
I still don’t know what and “Evangelical” is. Are evangelicals and christians different? I think there is a HUGE gray area in between.
I think the media define evangelicals as christians or anyone who attends a christian church…
Nelsa on January 23, 2008 at 10:22 PM
@ mred on January 23, 2008 at 10:20 PM
No, you see, when people quote others they use these things -> “”"”"”"”"”"”"”. Those things are called quotation marks, and they are used to indicate that you are using another persons words.
Also, I don’t quote the likes of Al Gore. How is the reading coming, I am sure you are really pounding away at those sites I sent you. Ready to concede that there are tons of facts for evolution??? Of course not, conceding isnt something that someone who believes in ID can do, because if their beliefs aren’t absolute, everything crumbles.
muyoso on January 23, 2008 at 10:42 PM
@ mred on January 23, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Gotta hand it to you, you did make me laugh with that one.
muyoso on January 23, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Yup.
TX Mom on January 23, 2008 at 10:52 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo
Very interesting watch, and interesting question.
muyoso on January 23, 2008 at 11:05 PM
There is definitely a liberal trend in certain evangelical circles, which Bryan can no doubt explain to us in that post he’s writing about Rick Warren (right, See-Dub?). BeliefNet caters to those more liberal Christians, I think. I don’t ever spend any time there, although I am a Christian. The little I’ve read there convinced me that we had little in common.
I would think that as certain evangelical Christians become more liberal in their beliefs, they would drift to the Democrat party. But maybe not. I’m ready for a 3rd party, although evidently some of you
would find me an embarrassment. Even though we agree on nearly all issues. Hey, that’s fine. The Libertarian party has done a great job winning elections lately, hasn’t it? No? Maybe we should continue to work together on the issues where we have common ground, then.
I’m getting tired of being told how embarrassing y’all think I am. My belief in Creation and my pro-life views don’t really impact your life directly.
TX Mom on January 23, 2008 at 11:07 PM
You make a good point. I don’t see where there are any significant conflicts between libertarians and social conservatives.
There are a few: Abortion is one where we will just have to agree to disagree (although I don’t know how one can agree with the procedure after viewing an ultrasound, but hey, that’s just me).
Gay marriage? I think the burden is on those who want to change several thousand years of precedent, but perhaps we could compromise on doing away with civil marriage…so long as you can promise that the left will not use that as an opportunity to use the coercive power of the state to compel full acceptance of the GLBT lifestyle by every last individual, organization, business or religious institution.
On all other issues I can think of, socially conservative evangelicals just want to be left alone by government and exercise their right to free speech, just like libertarians although to different ends. Homeschoolers are living the libertarian life about as much as anyone can.
So why the rift?
Nosferightu on January 24, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Without reviewing the previous comments, I would submit that there is a huge difference between protecting the environment and buying into the global warming hoax. Conservation is, after all, conservative.
fourstringfuror on January 24, 2008 at 12:30 AM
It was also the first place.
fourstringfuror on January 24, 2008 at 12:32 AM
A. I call Bullshit, and
2. It’s been a while since I mentioned that Huckabee is a first rate douchebag, a liar, and a religious bigot.
III. Duncan Who?
Jaibones on January 24, 2008 at 1:36 AM
There are whole books written to refute the “thousands of facts” which “prove” evolution, so I seriously doubt you’re going to get any really productive discussion in a few back-and-forth posts.
I will say, though, that to prove evolution you have to do considerably more than show minor genetic variations such as color in a species of moth, or arrange animals in an assumed evolutionary order and claim that as proof that one evolved into another. In fact, the only really good proof of evolution would be multiple thousands of transitional forms as one species evolves into another, and that is stubbornly missing.
To put it in more scientific terms, you can’t assume proof of macroevolution — animals evolving into new species — by showing proof of microevolution — minor genetic adaptation to the environment.
Frankly, I’ve never understood the extreme insistence of many that a rejection of evolution disqualifies someone from being an intelligent, reasonable individual. Since there are many reasonable, intelligent people who reject evolution and somehow manage to lead happy, productive lives, I’d say that evolution is not a really major issue. Unless, of course, you’re an evolutionist.
theregoestheneighborhood on January 24, 2008 at 3:03 AM
Who would trust a poll of typical evangelicals from Beliefnet? If you go to ‘about beliefnet’ you find they have business or editorial partnerships with Time, ABCNEws, and tarot.com among others.
Evangelicals are going to hang out anywhere near tarot.com?
In the link to the poll it says their poll was promoted on Beliefnet and in their newletters
That makes it about as evangelical worthy as your average unitarian convention
I find beliefnet creepy and anti christian because it promotes all faiths as equal so not to offend, including scientology, and other IMHO pagan religions. As a Christian, I would never put a link to send anyone in a direction I felt offended God and my faith
entagor on January 24, 2008 at 3:19 AM
Who did they poll? I don’t know anyone who does anything with Beliefnet and I’ve been a big born-again Christian for years! I never took any such survey. Neither did anyone I know. And for the record, most Christians I talk to say their top two issues are criminal aliens and evil muslim terrorist.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on January 24, 2008 at 8:44 AM
s
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on January 24, 2008 at 8:45 AM
This doesn’t surprise me at all. I’ve been saying for a long time that while Evangelicals are an absolutely critical part of the GOP voting base, they are a much more diverse group of voters than they are given credit for. People think they all vote the same and that social issues are by far their most passionate cause, but that’s really not the case. Social issues are important to them, but if their voting is really informed by their faith, then it makes sense that environmental protection rates high with them (it’s God’s creation) and ending poverty does as well (Christian charity, help the needy, etc.) So while maybe they were consolidated into a mega voting block by the conservative tide that came about in the 1980s, nowadays they are much more diverse and I suspect much more willing to vote for a Democrat if they feel they reflect their values and concerns better.
mattyj86 on January 24, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I call shenanigans. Internet poll of “self described” born again evangelicals… right… let’s see the voter registration cards and evangelism tattoos.
regal on January 24, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Let’s correct the semantics:
Those who value “nature” or “the environment” over humans are Pagans. Paganism is not new: it’s been around for thousands of years, and it usually collapses quickly after a resurgence because it is a fundamentally hollow, self-indulgent, and self-destructive belief system (it was the pagan temples in the ancient world which had resident prostitutes).
Those who believe in the supremacy of humans and that “nature” is around for the benefit of humans are Christians, Jews, or some other traditional religion based on the Bible.
I suppose that Pagans can have their own “evangelicals,” but let’s not confuse them with the others.
landlines on January 24, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2