Religion and politics

There’s an article in the NY Times Campaign Stops blog about religion and politics. Here’s a quote:

At the end of the 19th century, Robert Ingersoll was the most notorious heretic in the land, famous for his lectures debunking Christianity and the Bible. Yet Republicans — yes, the party of George W. Bush and the Rev. Pat Robertson — begged him to campaign in their behalf.

That it was Republicans, and not Democrats, who embraced Ingersoll is not surprising to anyone who understands the history of politics. Before FDR and the New Deal, the Republicans were the party of the smart people while the Democrats were the party of the dumb people. And as I demonstrated before, intelligent people are less religious. For example, the most famous Democrat to lose a presidential election was William Jennings Bryan, who was also famous for his strong religious views and his opposition to the teaching of evolution.

And yes, it’s too bad that the late 1800s was more of an age of reason than modern times.

Comments

[JewishAtheist]

We have gone backwards a bit in America. However, I think atheism may be much stronger among the very intelligent today than it was in the 1800s.

[Turambar]

Looking back from this era in which political discourse is bound by religious strictures, Ingersoll’s legend seems not only distant but tall, as though he were a kind of Paul Bunyan of blasphemy. Today, no major politician would risk association with the brilliant and big-hearted Great Agnostic, whose oratory commanded the late 19th century stage like no other. Devoted father, husband, friend and patriot be damned. Piety trumps all.

Sniff. Awe, that was gushing and heart warming.

Wilkson neglects the recent parallel of the Legend of Geoffrey Fieger. Feiger was another noted attorney, outspoken orator and cynical religion baiter who the Democrats ran for Governer. He campaigned with Hilliary Clinton and then House Minority leader Dem. David Bonior. Sadly, for the Times at least, piety trumped all and even Democrats voted against the guy.

Francis Wilkinson is a complete in-the-tank hack. He equates Hagee and Rev, Wright with "Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama each has had the odd preacher in the attic" like there is any fair comparison.

He also applauds Obama bowing out of public financing- but only the Lightgiver- on the logic ". Obama is allowed to raise unlimited money and not be criticized for it because re 527 ads "While no similar ad campaign is yet under way against Mr. Obama, the chances that he will skate to November without sustaining a barrage seem slim."

Chance are slim that any Republican can do anything without obnoxious and misrepresentation 527 ads being run, so why dont they get a pass too? For that matter McCain will get misrepresented and smeared by the free press.

[Half Sigma]

Jewish Atheist, in the 1800s, I believe (but I wasn't around then, so who knows?) that the very intelligent practiced a polite form of ceremonial Christianity. They didn't consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" or some other such nonsense. They more likely considered themselves "church-going but not spiritual."

[I just did a Google search, and discovered that I'm the first person in the world to ever write down the phrase "church-going but not spiritual."]

Turambar,
The press is totally in the tank for Obama. They can't stop fellating the guy. Obama is a liberal wet dream, they can't help themselves. Think it is out of control now? Just wait until the election gets closer.

[Ned]

William Jennings Bryan was a devout, some would say fanatical, Christian, but I don't think he was unintelligent. He was a populist, sort of a pacifist (although he served in the army during the Spanish-American War), a prohibitionist and opposed Darwinism. He reminds me a lot of Obama.

[mikeca]

And yes, it’s too bad that the late 1800s was more of an age of reason than modern times.

You mean its too bad that the Republican party is now the party of dumb people.

[David Alexander]

the Republicans were the party of the smart people

Interestingly, up until the 1960s, the Republicans managed to capture a significant amount of the black vote, and this is a group that this blog seems to be obsessed with finding new ways of proving black mental inferiority so this may punch some holes in your theory...

[Wade Nichols]

Interestingly, up until the 1960s, the Republicans managed to capture a significant amount of the black vote, and this is a group that this blog seems to be obsessed with finding new ways of proving black mental inferiority so this may punch some holes in your theory...

Interestingly, the founders of the Ku Klux Klan were all members of the Democratic Party, and the majority of the Grand Wizards and Grand Dragons of the KKK throughout history were also loyal Democrats. Also, as a percentage of the party, more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plus, Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution – abolishing slavery, granting citizenship rights to newly freed slaves, and guaranteeing the right to vote (at least on paper) to blacks, respectively.

So, this may punch some holes in the theory that the Democrats are the party of "inclusion".

[Turambar]

You mean its too bad that the Republican party is now the party of dumb people.

GSS disagrees with you PARTYID vs WORDSUM.

So, this may punch some holes in the theory that the Democrats are the party of "inclusion".

Or theories of black intelligence.

[Vim]

David Alexander:

"and this is a group that this blog seems to be obsessed with finding new ways of proving black mental inferiority so this may punch some holes in your theory"

The various blog denizens are interesting to talk to because they are so bizarre but they are politically irrelevant. They don't reflect any political party and they aren't the future of any of the parties. The demographics mandate a philosophical shift in the Republican party toward 'inclusion' or more to the point, votes.

[Wade Nichols]

They don't reflect any political party and they aren't the future of any of the parties.

"In the long term, we're all dead." - John Maynard Keynes

[Rain And]

Before FDR and the New Deal, the Republicans were the party of the smart people while the Democrats were the party of the dumb people.

If we're talking about averages, this is still the case. Even just among whites.

If we're talking about averages, this is still the case. Even just among whites.

Having so many black/hispanic Democrats must drag the average down a good bit.

[SFG]

As I recall, there was a fairly lengthy analysis, done by me, a while back, showing that once you drew it out and did a complete correlation you had a fairly complicated parfait-like relationship with Democrats smarter than Republicans smarter than Democrats smarter than Republicans or some such.

I should also mention the parties have pretty much switched sides since 1900. The Republicans were formed to oppose slavery, and are now the party of the Dixiecrats. The Democrats were the party of the South, and now are anything but.

[tommy]

The Republicans are now largely the middle-of-the-road party. The Democrats monopolize the vote of well-to-do white status-hounds and dumb blacks and Hispanics.

[tommy]

I should also mention the parties have pretty much switched sides since 1900. The Republicans were formed to oppose slavery, and are now the party of the Dixiecrats. The Democrats were the party of the South, and now are anything but.

True, but the liberals did take at least one thing with them from their Southern Dixiecrat heritage; namely, the moral and cultural relativism so often used to justify slave-holding and segregation in the Old South. Now they just employ the same standards in support of brown, black, and non-Western people against whites.