Mitt Romney красавец!

[Mikhail-u]

Ок, даже если все атеисты-демоны, всё равно то что сказал [Incognito] правильно:

И Ленин тоже сказал

"

Политика партии правильная, потому, что она верная":evillaugh :evillaugh

[Mikhail-u]

А что подтверждать? большиство людей в америке верующее, где то только 10-15% не ассоциируются ни с какой религией, хотя не значит что они не верят... Так что большинство в любой партии верующие...

Our Secularist Democratic Party (Long, Important Analysis)

Just as Republicans need to win the evangelical-fundamentalist vote without scaring off religious moderates, so too must Democrats mobilize secularists and anti-fundamentalists without becoming too identified in public discourse as the party hostile to religion. Whether, and to what extent, people become aware of the increased influence of secularists in the Democratic party (or the importance of religious traditionalists to the GOP) depends, of course, on how the mainstream media chooses to present the new religious divide in the electorate to the public.


the Times and Post published 392 articles on the gender gap. In the 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections, white women on average gave Democrats 9 percent more of their vote than did white men; the average gap separating secularists and religious traditionalists in these same elections was 42 percentage points.

In their study The Media Elite, Robert Lichter and his associates found that one of the most distinctive characteristics of the media elite "is its secular outlook." Half of the journalists they surveyed claimed no religion and more than eight of ten never or seldom attended religious services. Taking secularist views for granted, journalists may not see secularism as a distinct ideology or think secularists are definable as a political category.

just because an organized group does not publicly identify itself as "secularist" does not mean that it lacks a secularist worldview on contentious cultural issues. People for the American Way, for example, is most often characterized in press accounts as a civil-liberties and civil-rights group, rarely as a secularist organization.

Although considerable attention has been devoted to religious and cultural conflict in American political life, few in the mainstream media have acknowledged the true origins of this conflict - namely, the increased prominence of secularists within the Democratic party, and the party's resulting antagonism toward traditional values.

consensus was shattered in 1972 when the Democratic party was captured by a faction whose cultural reform agenda was perceived by many (both inside and outside the convention) as antagonistic to traditional religious values. The political scientist Geoffrey Layman has defined this block, the largest in the party, as "secularists," - that is, self-identified agnostics, atheists, and persons who never or seldom attend religious services. Over a third of white delegates fit this description, a remarkable figure considering that, according to James Davison Hunter, only about 5 percent of the population in 1972 could be described as secularists. (in1972!!!)

Two-thirds of white Republican delegates attended religious services at least once a month, while only two of five white Democratic delegates demonstrated that level of commitment to their faiths.

Secularists gave Clinton over three-quarters of their vote, while traditionalists favored President Bush over Clinton by a margin of two to one.

The results indicate that over the past decade persons who intensely dislike fundamentalist Christians have found a partisan home in the Democratic party. Clinton captured 80 percent of these voters in his victories over President Bush in 1992 and over Senator Robert Dole four years later

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/819778/posts

[sharik]

Our Secularist Democratic Party (Long, Important Analysis)

Just as Republicans need to win the evangelical-fundamentalist vote without scaring off religious moderates, so too must Democrats mobilize secularists and anti-fundamentalists without becoming too identified in public discourse as the party hostile to religion. Whether, and to what extent, people become aware of the increased influence of secularists in the Democratic party (or the importance of religious traditionalists to the GOP)

....

[sharik]

The two groups in the front lines of the culture wars are evangelical Christians, including fundamentalists, characterized by their high levels of religiosity and conservative attitudes on cultural issues, and secularists, who reject traditional religious values and tend to espouse liberal views on cultural and church-state issues

And what's better? to be fundamentalist or use some kind of reasoning?

[Mikhail-u]

....

Ну и что? что нового в том, что "традиционалисты важны"? И каким образом это доказывает, что "подавляющее большинство" Демонов - верующие? Причём, как раз влияние традиционалистов в ГОП падает, а вот оголтелые леваки-секуляристы в ДОП набирают влияние.

[sharik]

Just as Republicans need to win the evangelical-fundamentalist vote without scaring off religious moderates, so too must Democrats mobilize secularists and anti-fundamentalists without becoming too identified in public discourse as the party hostile to religion. Whether, and to what extent, people become aware of the increased influence of secularists in the Democratic party (or the importance of religious traditionalists to the GOP) depends, of course, on how the mainstream media chooses to present the new religious divide in the electorate to the public.
. the increased prominence of secularists within the Democratic party, and the party's resulting antagonism toward traditional values.
this block, the largest in the party, as "secularists," - that is, self-identified agnostics, atheists, and persons who never or seldom attend religious services.
Two-thirds of white Republican delegates attended religious services at least once a month, while only two of five white Democratic delegates demonstrated that level of commitment to their faiths.

Ну а то что Вы повыделяли как-то доказывает, что большинство демократов атеисты? :rolleyes:

Скорее показывает что большинсво атеистов- демократы, а не наооборот

[Mikhail-u]

Анд щхатьс беттер? то бе фундаменталист ор усе соме кинд оф реасонинг?

Какое там "ризонинг" у воинствующих безбожников? В той же статье: даже среди традиционалистов - 86% против фундаменталистов - без которых левота просто сделала бысебе харакири - кем тогда пугать шариков?

[Mikhail-u]

Ну а то что Вы повыделяли как-то доказывает, что большинство демократов атеисты? :роллеыес:

Скорее показывает что большинсво атеистов- демократы, а не наооборот

Для забывчивых повторяю: шарик и Инкогнито дружно твердят про "подавляющее большинство" верующих в ДОП. Это не было правдой уже в 1972. Только 40% посещают церковь не реже раза в месяц. А из посещающих, далеко не все верующие - и не факт, что большинство.

[sharik]

Да блин, верующий и религиозный не одно и тоже...

Можно верить и никуда не ходить, можно поговорить с Богом и дома, без церковный посредников...

А можно каждую неделю ходить в церковь и не фига не верить, таких встречается не мало кстати, тому как хождение туда больше как [social event]....

Не ходят в церковь правильно делают, то что церковь наделала на протяжении всей истории, туда вааще ходить не стоит....

[Incognito]

[The Democrats have become the "secular party," the Republicans the party of the religious. So says the current conventional wisdom.

This "God Gulf," in the words of New York Times columnist Nick Kristof, is reflected in polls like this recent one from Pew Center for People and the Press: 64 percent of those who attend church more than once a week intend to vote for President Bush while 66 percent of those who never attend plan to vote for the Democrat - a whopping 32 point gap. Columnist Robert Novak refers to the "highly secularist" nature of the Democratic Party, echoing an article in the Public Interest magazine called "Our Secularist Democratic Party."
But there is no God Gulf. It's a myth. Yes, there are significant differences between the approaches of Democratic and Republican voters on religion, but much political analysis has misstated what's actually going on.

What we have seen is not a faith gap but a church attendance gap. Study after study have indeed showed that those who attend worship services regularly do vote Republican and those who don't, vote Democratic. For instance, the 2000 National Survey of Religion and Politics showed that 51.9 percent percent of Republicans attend weekly compared to just 37.4 percent of Democrats. This attendance gap appears even to have widened as we move toward the 2004 election.

But church attendance is just one aspect of religiosity. When that same poll asked about "prayer outside of worship" the gap shrunk dramatically, with 67 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Democrats reporting that they pray daily or more often.



Another measure of spirituality is whether people believe in life after death. The percentage of people who do believe that and are Republican: 94 percent. The percentage that are Democratic: 92 percent. Asked the importance of religion in their lives, there was a similar pattern. Among those who said it was very important, the partisan gap was just 45.4 percent to 38 percent, and even that 7-point gap shrunk to almost nothing when you create a broader category of people for whom religion either very or somewhat important.
In other words, most Republicans and most Democrats pray, believe in life after death, and find religion important. The vast majority of people in both parties are, in fact, religious or spiritual.

So what are we to make of the substantial-and growing-worship attendance gap? It indicates that Republicans tend to rely far more on organized religion and Democrats tend to find spiritual nourishment through less formal means. We can't know which approach makes for a closer relationship with God, but it is clear which type of voter is politically more valuable. Those who attend houses of worship regularly are more likely to turn out on election day, so the Republican strength with that group is a real tactical advantage. This is also why African-Americans are so important to the Democrats: without the church connection, black turnout would be much lower.

While Republicans have the edge with the highly religious (including the fabled "religious right"), Democrats do better with secular people (including atheists, agnostics and those indifferent to religion). But it would be a big mistake for Democratic candidates to think its party faithful is faithless. Such an approach could alienate large numbers of their loyal followers, not to mention independents and swing voters. Sitting in the pews may not be important to many Democrats, but God and prayer are. In fact, talking about faith may be critical for Democratic candidates to overcome the attendance gap.]

[http://www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13948_1.html]

И вот:

[Belief in God is higher in the Midwest (82%) and in the South (82%) than in the East (75%) and the West (75%). It tends to increase with age from 71% of those aged 25 to 29 to more than 80% for the three age groups of people over 40, including 83% of those aged 65 and over.

Women are more likely than men to believe in God (84% versus 73%). African Americans (91%) are more likely to believe in God than Hispanics (81%) and whites (78%). Republicans (87%) are more likely to believe in God than Democrats (78%) and Independents (75%). Those with no college education (82%) are more likely to believe in God than those with postgraduate education (73%).]

[http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...x.asp?PID=408]

То есть Шарик абсолютно права: подавляющее большинство демократов--верующие. Просто республиканцы намного чаще посещают церковь и отрицают эволюцию, что, на мой взгляд, не есть признак разумности.

И Миша, ваш [freerepublic]--самая что ни на есть агитка; этот, с позволения сказать сайт--просто собрание мракобесов. Постарайтесь цитировать менее ангажированные источники.