I have read a couple of bi-partisan studies recently about America's growing progressive beliefs. In today's Chronicle, there was another story about it. Here is an exerpt: Americans not as split as votes say By PATTY REINERT Copyright 2000 Houston Chronicle TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Democrats and Republicans have virtually split the U.S. Congress. The presidential election is among the closest in history. But are Americans really evenly divided? Not according to the exit polls. Democratic, Republican and nonpartisan pollsters alike say voters may have been swayed by political ads, frustrated by the debates, turned off by the candidates or confused by the ballot. But regardless of what they said in the voting booth, in exit polls they spoke their minds on what's important to them. And here is what they said: The majority of Americans support abortion rights, greater environmental protection, stricter gun safety laws and better social acceptance of gays. They favor spending the budget surplus on government programs over tax cuts. They prefer fixing public schools over resorting to vouchers. They want a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, not private insurance. So why didn't Vice President Al Gore, who campaigned on all of those issues and won the popular vote nationwide, put Texas Gov. George W. Bush away months ago? "Because Al Gore was a lousy political candidate who could never figure out how to deal with Bill Clinton," said Robert Borosage, co-director of Washington, D.C.'s nonpartisan Campaign for America's Future. "And because George Bush and the Republicans succeeded in blurring the issues and cross-dressing as Democrats." Although he might word it differently, Republican pollster Frank Luntz essentially agrees. "The economy is humming along. We're at peace. People feel things are going well. The incumbent party should have been re-elected overwhelmingly," Luntz said. "And the reason it wasn't was that George W. Bush is a very good communicator, and Al Gore is not. Al Gore was the worst part of his own campaign, and George Bush was the best part of his." First, the demographics: Separate polls by the Campaign for America's Future's Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg and by Luntz, as well as research by several television networks and The Associated Press, show that Gore did well among women, minorities, gays, single people, union members and the poor. Whites, men, married couples with children and the wealthy favored Bush. Hispanics voted 2 to 1 for Gore; African-Americans backed him 9 to 1 and turned out to vote in record numbers, thanks to a massive voter registration drive by the NAACP and other groups. Jews, attracted by Gore's Jewish running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, as well as traditionally Democratic issues, voted overwhelmingly for Gore, as did people who practice no religion. Bush got the Protestant vote, especially among frequent churchgoers. Gore, who is for abortion rights and the death penalty, got half of the vote from Catholics, who oppose both. Bush, who shares Gore's views on the death penalty but opposes abortion rights, held his own with Catholics, despite his early campaign gaffe of speaking at Bob Jones University, accused by critics of anti-Catholic and racist viewpoints. A surprise to no one -- except, apparently, Gore -- exit polls across the board showed a high approval rating for the Clinton-Gore administration -- 63 percent in Luntz's poll, which surveyed slightly more Democrats than Republicans among 1,200 polled. I've read other stories with the same bent from conservative and liberal publications alike. Mainly, it goes "liberalism is threatening to take away our way of life" in conservative rags and "conservatives breathing last gasp of air" in liberal rags. Now, I personally do see some difference in the attitudes of people. As the country continues to grow in its diversity, so will the views of the people. It seems to me that having the white Protestant vote as your primary source of votes is something not to be proud of. As that group grows smaller, and scientists and sociologists all agree that it will, I would think a candidate would want as broad a spectrum of supporters as possible. The two fastest growing religions in America are Buddhism and Islam, a reflection of the continued diversification of America. I read a study done recently that cited how blue eyes were becoming increasingly less prevalent among Americans as more people began marrying and having children with people of different races and ethnicities. Does this surprise anyone else? I personally think that the internet and the availability of information on differing cultures and the ability to make friends (like all of us here) with people of differing opinions has caused this as well. Any thoughts? ------------------ Time for a new cause.
I think it's great that the country's becoming more diverse. I think inter-racial marriages are a great thing. There's a cool line in the movie "Bulworth", where Warren Beatty says something like "you want to get rid of racism, everybody start f___ing everybody. Eliminate race, and eliminate racism"...something like that. On the other hand, I don't think political parties should have to cater to particular races. I don't think it's the Republican party's fault that blacks don't vote for them. I think it makes blacks look just as bad as it does Republicans. I also don't think diversity should have to always mean 'more liberal'. I don't see why the country can't become more diverse, but at the same time adopt more conservative values. It doesn't have to have anything to do with religion, either (I'm not religious). Why do Jews have to vote overwhelmingly for Gore just because Lieberman's Jewish? Do you think if Bush had chosen J.C. Watts or Colin Powell that most blacks would've voted for him? Just trying to contribute something to the topic. There's a lot of interesting stuff you've thrown out there, Jeff. ------------------ People like to slam Bush's education record, but at least Texans know how to punch holes.
You have to remember though, Jeff, that this article is basing this on Exit Polls. According to MSNBC, Democrats are more likely to talk to exit pollers than Republicans. Also, I believe that out in the middle of Montana, that you arent going to see any exit polls. However, in a liberal city such as New York, you would see them everywhere. I know I am a Republican, but I dont vote Straight Republican. And I have NEVER answered an Exit Poller.. I just dont think it is any of their business. ------------------ "Her Box Started Buzzing Ever Since She Heard The CRÜE"
DUDE: The exit polls regarding the choices for president were done (this was further down in the article) by two separate groups - one Republican and one Democrat. Each surveyed 2000 people in the US at random. The "values" section regarding what Americans believe (gay rights, gun control, etc) was a large survey done by a bi-partisan group throughout the US with the results just now being released. I have seen at least two other sociological groups who have done similar studies that have been released in the past few months. So, they are representative of a wide range of people throughout the US. Freak: Thanks for the kind words. I agree that diversity is a good thing, however, I would argue that adopting more conservative values would not necessarily encourage diversity. Generally speaking, conservative values include traditionalist ideals based on religious beliefs. Of course, this isn't always the case. But, in general, diversity tends to broaden viewpoints which has a liberal tendency. Conservatives, again in general, have a tendency to avoid progressive thought because of the possibility it might inherently alter belief. By example, the Christian religion does its best to avoid concepts like life on other planets because it minimizes their belief in human life above all others and Jesus being the only way into heaven. Christians once considered the belief that the earth was not the center of the universe to be blasphemey for instance. These are beliefs based on the fear of change and show a real disregard for progressive thought and diversity. Now, frankly, there are many conservative viewpoints with which I agree but they are general things that I think most of us can agree upon. Concepts like the golden rule (do unto others) are conservative in origin but really apply to all of us. As we grow more diverse, we adopt the beliefs, cultures and ideologies of other groups. As those are swallowed up, we change as a whole. Adopting conservative values is fine, but whose conservative values? White Protestant Americans? Native American? Indian? Asian? Black? Latino? How do we guage which one's are conservative? What an Eastern European Catholic might believe to be conservative will certainly be different from what a Islamic fundamentalist or a Wiccan high priestess or an Taoist monk considers conservative thought. Therein lies the problem. If we were to adopt any values outside of our own, we would have to go beyond the limits of our own beliefs and expand our capacity for understanding. That, in and of itself, is an act of progressive thought and not generally associated with conservative ideology. Honestly, however, the "conservative" and "liberal" labels are limiting and really don't do much to foster change simply because of the connotations they bring with them. Maybe I should have called this thread "Americans Becoming Different" ------------------ Time for a new cause.
And why not? Wow, that's a wholely inaccurate blanketing statement if I've ever seen one (and I just did). 1.) I am a white male. 2.) I have a black wife. This by itself may not mean a whole lot to people, but think about it. I have black sister-in-laws, black brother-in-laws, black nephews (no nieces yet), a black mother-in-law (Unfortunately my wife's father died before I ever got to meet him), and if that doesn't do it for you, I'll have black children. 3.) I am very conservative on most issues. Anti-Abortion, Pro-Right to Bear Arms, Pro-Strong Military, Anti-Big Government, etc. 4.) I am very religious. Here's another issue where lately people (mostly liberal) have become accustomed to disregarding an opinion from those with strong religious beliefs. I only follow what's in the Bible. I tend to question anything any church tries to pass off as the "will of God" unless I can find it somewhere in the Bible. I also would never try to "force" my religion on anyone. If there's a discussion about religion, hell yeah, I'm gonna let my opinions be heard, but if you don't like them, fine. 5.) I (nor my wife) make very much money. Although, I hope to one day with a little luck. 6.) We will both have college educations by the end of 2001. So, to sum it up: We're interracial, poor, and educated.... sounds like we should be liberals, don't it? All you (or anyone who believes there to be life on other planets) have to do is prove us wrong. Wouldn't we all look like idiots then? Not necessarily. Because, no where in the Bible does it say that God didn't go one to create other life in the Universe. I personally don't think He did. But, then again It doesn't say He didn't (As far as I know). If it wasn't in the Bible then please do not associate any "belief" with the Christian religion. Because doing so would only lend creedence to the hundreds of fanatical Christian splinter groups such as David Koresh (just an example). You can say that the leaders of the church (along with many many other philosophers) may have believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. But, to say "Christians believed it" is saying that Christianity taught it, and it didn't. What "beliefs"? And what is "progressive thought"? I think I'm a pretty progressively thinking person. One thing I don't believe in is "change just for the sake of change". If there is going to be change, it needs to be for the better, not just because someone wants a change. Yup. I do not agree 100% with the entire Republican platform. I do not disagree 100% with the entire Democratic platform. But, for me, what I find wrong with the Republican way of government are more easily fixed, than what I find wrong with the Democratic way of government. I also think if I were in public office, I would find it much easier to implement programs that were considered to be Democratic/liberal ideas, than a liberal would implementing Republican/conservative ideas. My two cents, you may return to living your life as normal.
Wow, that's a wholely inaccurate blanketing statement if I've ever seen one (and I just did). Why do you think I kept saying "generally speaking" and "in general"? You, obviously, are unique. Do you honestly believe that the average listener to Rush Limbaugh is a white male married to a black female with your beliefs? Probably not. I applaud your interesting lifestyle and aknowledge your beliefs as unique. Great. That doesn't mean that they reflect the typical conservative viewpoint. I only follow what's in the Bible. Talk about a broad statement. So, do you not eat pork? Do you believe that women who have sex before they are married be stoned in town square or that we should do unto others? Do you believe in an eye for an eye or turn the other cheek? You believe in a strong military but do you believe the meek shall inherit the earth? I spent better than half my life studying every intricacy of the Bible from stem to stern. It is a book of great wisdom and exceeding contradiction. So, you probably need to clarify when you say you follow the Bible. I do too, but probably not the same parts you do. If it wasn't in the Bible then please do not associate any "belief" with the Christian religion. Because doing so would only lend creedence to the hundreds of fanatical Christian splinter groups such as David Koresh (just an example). You can say that the leaders of the church (along with many many other philosophers) may have believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. But, to say "Christians believed it" is saying that Christianity taught it, and it didn't. The Bible is NOT Christianity. In fact, the Old Testement is predominantly Jewish and is still followed in Judaism. In fact, many Muslims follow the Old Testament as well. Christianity is a religion founded on the teachings of Jesus. It is an organized religion formed several hundred years after the death of Jesus. To call yourself a Christian, for centuries, was to associate yourself with the church, the same church that forced Galileo to recant his belief that the sun was the center of the solar system or be put to death. Millions worldwide consider themselves followers of the same Christian religion that practiced these beliefs AND TAUGHT THEM. This is not to say all Christianity is bad just that it is historically associated with it. Just like white people are associated with slavery, Nazi's with the holocost and Dead Heads with free love and drug use. What "beliefs"? And what is "progressive thought"? The belief that women should submit themselves to their husbands and not be allowed to be leaders in the church is one example. It reflects an attitude that demonstrates an unwillingness to accept the social changes that permiate our world and allow the equality of a perfectly equal gender. My mother was driven from the Lutheran church by a minister who told her that she would either submit to male authority figures or not be allowed to attend. Wrong thing to say to my mom. Please understand that this is not a shot at your personal beliefs. I practiced Christianity for nearly 20 years and still hold many of the teachings of Jesus sacred and consider them as important as any teachings I have learned. Everyone has to follow their hearts. I was just trying to answer you questions the best way I knew how. Disclaimer: The examples above are obviously not true for every situation or every person. I think it is well documented that I have said we should approach everything on a individual basis. ------------------ Time for a new cause.
Freak, with regards to "why would Jews want to vote for Lieberman/Gore because he is Jewish," I compare it to me cheering for a player because he is Chinese like myself. I know politics is a million times more important then basketball, but I think they feel like voting for "one of their own." I wouldn't necessarily do that, unless I agree with his/her views. ------------------ "There are two players carrying the Rockets right now. Hakeem and Olajuwon." Isiah Thomas
Jeff, I don't want to turn this into another religion discussion... not that that would be bad. Since I stated I was a Christian, then you, as someone who has studied the Bible, obviously know which part of the Bible I most closely follow. Not that I totally ignore the Old Testament, because it is a very valuable book for Christians as well as Jews, and possibly Muslims. Yes, I do eat pork, but then again I lie every once in a while too. I believe in turn the other cheek.... to an extent. The New Testament did not discount everything in the Old Testament. It was a "changing of the guard" in a sense. The Old Testament was full of punishment (for lack of a better word): Cast out of the Garden of Eden, The Flood, plagues, lost in the desert for 40 years, the destruction of the Tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, etc. The New Testament taught forgiveness. When Jesus was crucified, he absorbed all the punishment for all sin past, present, and future. Also, to eat pork in the Old Testament was a sin. Well, it's not sins that keep people out of Heaven. It's not having a relationship with Jesus. Christians still sin, they are people. But, when he said, "I am the way..." that's what he meant. Yeah, so? The military isn't my religious belief, it's my governmental stance. I believe this country needs a strong military to ward off potential threats. I believe everyone should believe in Christ. Not that everyone has to, just that I'd like it if they did. We are relatively the same age. I went to private schools up until highschool. I learned as much about the Bible as one could in those circumstances and at that age. But, I've also had the amazing advantage of having my father be a minister in the Assemby of God church, my eldest uncle a Roman Catholic Priest, and my aunt and uncle who are married are both Episcopal ministers. So, although I have not read the entire Bible from cover to cover, I've discussed many topics that have come up in conversation with them and come up with a few of my own ideas. What I have mainly been focusing on the past few years are the prophecies in Revelations and the overall general meanings behind the teachings of Christ. (i.e. - changing my whole outlook on homosexuality, my anger, and some intolerance for other people). Man, I love to talk face to face to people about this stuff. Over the BBS I can't quite express what I want too. Unfortunately, most people think that if you want to "talk" about religion, that you really want to argue with them or try to "convert" them. I've talked with Muslims, Agnostics, Mormons, Rastafarians, and probably more. I hope I haven't bored anyone. Whenever I do talk with people about religion, I try not to say "Jesus" or "Christ" too often, because it tends to get people's eyes rolling back into their heads and they start to ignore you. But, I'm just rambling, it's getting late, and I'm having trouble putting together a well thought out post..... so, I guess I'm going to sleep. Later.
Why don't you just pick up a Quran, you will then find the truth.... no contradictions there, its clear and concise. --Rocketman ------------------
There are estimates of 2 billion Christians in a world of 6 billion people. If the 4 billion non-Christians aren't allowed into Heaven (as George W. Bush believes) then do they go to Hell instead? For the record, I was raised Catholic but am now an Atheist.
I can answer that with one word. Pride. Most? I don't know, but Bush would have gotten a much greater majority of the black vote with either Watts or Powell than he did two weeks ago. And if he would have chosen Powell as his running mate, he would definitely be preparing for his inauguration right now! ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right! [This message has been edited by RocketMan Tex (edited November 20, 2000).]
outlaw, First off no one is quaranteed a spot in Heaven. Some of those 2 billion Christians may not even get in, because they do not truly believe in what they say they believe in. As far as non-Christians, yes they don't get into Heaven as far as the teachings of the Bible go. But, I'm not the one who decides what the requirements are to spend the rest of eternity in God's presence... God is. Oultaw, you even as an Athiest, may get into Heaven. I don't know exactly how God chooses once we die. And, I may not get into Heaven if I decide to forsake Christ. So, it's not so cut and dry as you make it out. Heck, I could very well be wrong, I have no concrete proof that Christianity is the only way to eternal life. There could be a bunch of gods still sitting atop Mount Olympus, or maybe there is no god, or maybe there is reincarnation, but I know what I believe to be the truth. I just think it's interesting to watch the prophecies of the Bible come true. I also think it's interesting to watch as science proves things in the Bible as true (such as: The Flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the walls of Jericho crumbling at the time stated in the Bible, etc).
DREAMer -- do you happen to have a reference for these things, a book or something? That's something I wouldn't mind knowing more about. ------------------ "It's a great idea. A girl's name for a guy and lots of theatrics. I wish I'd thought of that." --Alice Cooper discussing Marilyn Manson
I believe in turn the other cheek.... to an extent. Interesting. I'm pretty much the same as you on this one though I wish I could get this to 100%. Since I stated I was a Christian, then you, as someone who has studied the Bible, obviously know which part of the Bible I most closely follow. Obviously, you mean the New Testament - mainly, the stuff in red - a little Bible humor. That's cool. I think this goes back to my original premise. The idea that these words, many of which were inaccurately translated in modern versions of the Bible, are golden and that no one should doubt their authenticity follows the notion of rigidity among conservative Christians and a lack of willingness to seek truth beyond what we have now. There is nothing wrong with the teachings of Christ. They are amazing, in fact. But, by the same token, there is value to be had in the teachings of Mohammed, Ghandi, Buddha, whatever. But, when I studied Christianity from grade school through college, I don't recall anyone in my religion classes actively telling me to seek out the truth. I can't imagine it has changed much. Most of what I got was, "This is all wrong and here's why." No real in-depth study of other religions and their differences. In fact, I had my teachers refer to religious beliefs I now know to be just different as "cults" or the "occult" as a way to scare people off from them. Hare Krishna's were "cultists." Actually, they are, for lack of a better word, a denomination of the Hindu religion. Mormonism (yes, Mormons) is a cult according to Christian teachers. As far as I know, my Mormon friends consider themselves to be Christians. In fact, only Jews are regarded with the same religious equality as Christians but even they are not getting into heaven. They are "misguided." This is exactly the type of inflexibility and dogmatic persistence I meant. There is nothing wrong, inherently, with the beliefs. They radiate truth. It is the notion that we somehow have the answers because of a loose conglomeration of books written over the course of a couple thousand years by as many as 50 authors, many of whom we cannot identify. Yeah, so? The military isn't my religious belief, it's my governmental stance. My point is that shouldn't your personal spiritual beliefs have a lot to do with your governmental stance? If it is important enough for you to practice on a daily basis, shouldn't it be a part of your political ideology outside of the stuff that is comfortable? Jesus was, above all, a bringer of peace. There was probably no peaceful revolutionary with as wide-ranging a reach as Jesus Christ. He taught nothing but love and peace. He had hippie ideals minus the free love (though I've even heard that debated) and drugs. I know that we all have contradictions. It is one of the things that makes us human. I'm just pointing out that you can't simply follow conservative Christian ideals and expect them all to line up with what Jesus taught. It doesn't work that way. ------------------ Time for a new cause.
An interesting thing about that is that Joe Smith ( ) proclaimed himself to be stronger than Jesus... that while Jesus' followers betrayed him, Smith's followers would never do the same. My grandpa (PhD in theology) showed me other interesting things in old papers, but most of them escape my mind. DREAMer: With all due respect, if you're going to appeal to science to give religion validity you will be disappointed time and time again. It is also inappropriate to look towards science for the things that you want to hear and then selectively dismiss things that don't fit Christianity's message (thus, begging the question). For example, you mentioned 'the flood'. The flood was apparently little more than a glacial dam breaking on a bunch of unlucky people off of the Tigres-Euphrates valley. From their perspective of course they thought it was a worldwide phenomenon. It simply wasn't. There is local evidence in the northern persian gulf region that it could have occurred, but that doesn't offer up the grandiose proof that a religion would want to base its history on. As far as the 'parting' of the Red Sea, I'm not sure what 'proof' you're alluding to, but I noticed a NOVA episode talking about paleoclimatological evidence of cyclical weather/drought patterns (gee that's not hard to imagine given the area). In such a situation it's easy to imagine a scenario where a drought/evap. exposed a sand bar in the Red Sea. It's actually easier to imagine a drought exposing a sandbar, IMO, than it is to imagine some omniscient GOD enabling the NRA spokesman to save the Jews (which actually makes me wonder why you're not Jewish). In science (as well as philosophy), there's a mantra... "keep it simple stupid". Basically this motto appeals to the notion that things should be based on empirical data. It is always easier to describe a phenomena when you have proof rather than casting everything to the wind and suggesting that there's some extra element that simply cannot be proven. If you're formulating an argument (a valid one) you never write down premise one, premise three and then draw some conclusion in which a major assumption was made from prem. 1 and prem. 3. The argument simply won't hold. I encourage your interest in science though. If you want to learn some truly neat things, and are ready to expunge yourself of preconcieved notions (good scientists aren't biased as to outcomes), you should take alot of geology & biology. If your religion offers you more solace than the pursuit of knowledge, then to be frank, it may be difficult to maintain a belief in a Christian GOD (only b/c of the human hubris brought to us by the Church to be honest) and simultaneously deal w/ say... the geologic time scale. p.s. I have the utmost respect that you can deal w/ these issues in such an open way and that you make yourself and your faith available for debate. ------------------ It just goes to show how skewed our priorities are when Mo Taylor makes millions of dollars while some high school teacher, that can actually rebound, scrapes to make a living. If Mo were half the power forward that Charles Barkley was, he'd be 3'2" and still board more than he does now.<font color="#dedfdf" size="-10"> [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited November 20, 2000).]
To get back to the original topic somewhat... Jeff, A few things. 1. Everything is talking about the people of this country, not this country. Two different entities. This country is not getting more liberal or anywhere near progressive. 2. Even the people are not too close to progressive. If the numbers are to be believed, they might be veering slightly to the left of center. 3. I agree with the idea that a more diverse, mixed society leads to more progressiveness, if handled correctly. I am also for the complete eradication of race. However, race mixing is a very long-term catalys to change. The problem is not with people but with the power structure and money. Give inner city (minority) children a chance at a real education and it will serve to prove that they are equally as capable as anyone else. This would not go over so well with priveledged white kiddies who would feel threatened. Then, if other children are just as good, other adults are as well. Then that kind of debunls the premise that only white men can lead this country/corporation (not meaning both, but one in the same). So whitey wants to stop any real development in "progressive" matters. And what whitey wants, whitey gets. Huh? Intentionally confusing, aren't I? DREAMer, First, one does not have to be open and progressive to marry a non-white. There are plenty of people with racist foundations who have done the same (not at all suggesting that you are, just that it does not always matter). I would be more interested to know if being with her (your wife) has changed your outlook at all, if your views of class/social structure has been altered. Has it made you more or less aware of race (not exclusively internally, either, externally as well)? Does that mean that you have adopted any of her culture? What does your family think about the possibility of you having non-white babies? Get any kind of "think about the difficulties of the children" speeches? Read bell hooks often now? ------------------ EZLN
Perhaps you should begin literacy-testing white Protestants. Better yet, a poll tax. After all, if having them represent the majority of a political group is a bad thing, it should be discouraged. Lock-step political thinking among socioeconomic groups HAS to be a bad thing. Period. While we're on the subject, blacks voted 90 percent to 9 in favor of Al Gore. That can't be good either. The Democrats should be ashamed. Their political base should be 70 percent white, 14 percent black, 11 percent Hispanic, 4 percent Asian, and one percent other. It's obvious that our current system of government does not work. People just refuse to vote proportionally based on their assigned racial category. What an outrage. Rest assured, when I marry my future wife, our children will be taught from conception that they are half-Asian, half-white, and should vote accordingly-- mostly for Republicans but on occasion, for Democrats, in order to live up to the high-minded cross of eugenics and politics. What a crock of ****. I'll go back to sitting quietly now. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited November 20, 2000).]
A fairly cynical view, I think. Sure, the problems are there with money and the power structure. Yes, there are certainly problems. But, look at it another way. Compare today to 30 years ago - 1970. How stark are the differences between now and then with regard to race, gender, class, etc? Now compare the difference between 2000 and 1970 to 1930 and 1900. Changes are coming faster as the result of technological and global social changes. Just a thought. ------------------ Time for a new cause.
Perhaps you should begin literacy-testing white Protestants. Better yet, a poll tax. After all, if having them represent the majority of a political group is a bad thing, it should be discouraged. Lock-step political thinking among socioeconomic groups HAS to be a bad thing. Period. You misunderstood my point. My point was that getting only one group of voters is not good for the future of ANY candidate or political ideology. As the diversity of America grows, getting only one group of voters will only decrease your chances of getting elected. At least Gore got the votes of women, Jews, African Americans, single people, Hispanics and the poor. That is a VERY diverse group. That base shows a lot more potential for growth than white Protestant men. The fact that all these diverse groups felt such and overwhelming commonality with a particular political party or candidate bodes well for that particular ideology. Why? Because America is changing radically. Within 50 years, we will be more racially diverse than we can possible imagine. The fact that each election greater numbers of minorities, women and poor people turn out to vote suggests that candidates MUST address the concerns of these groups or suffer defeat. That was my point. I was not attempting to suggest that white Protestant voters are stupid or wrong, just that their interests and ideologies, based on a wide range of studies, have reached their peak and have no room for expansion. By contrast, the beliefs and ideologies of minorities and women, for example, have plenty of room to expand because their concerns are just now being addressed. Women and minorities were largely ignored in politics until only recently. The split in this election only serves to underline the differences and the need of both parties to address a growing voice in American society and politics. To go from a country where, only 40 years ago, black men were being lynched and their killers going free and we had separate schools and restrooms for blacks and whites to where we are today is a tremendous change in the social and political fabric of our nation. We have witnessed some of the greatest changes in our country's history in less than a century and we can either embrace those changes and move forward or be left behind. The one true constant in the universe is change and politics is not immune. ------------------ Time for a new cause.
TheFreak, In reference to Biblical events: Unfortunately, no. But, I can explain what I heard in a little more detail. The Flood - I have heard reports throughout my life of scientists finding evidence of a world-wide flood. It never really comes in bunches, just bits here and there. Just recently I was walking by the TV, and I heard some reporter say something to the effect of, "Scientists find more evidence to support The Flood" That's not a real concrete argument. Hey, I could be lying, but I'm not. The Walls of Jericho - I saw some program about how some geologists somehow found out that an earthquake happened (in close enough proximity and with enough force to cause some serious damage) on the same day that the Jews were attacking Jericho. Now, many like to discount it as coincidence, but the fact remains that (I forget the name of the leader) said to blow the horns and the walls would fall, and they did. The Parting of the Red Sea - The program I saw showed how if a 50 or 60mph wind blew across the lake at a certain angle for a certain period of time (6 or 8 hours), that there is a shallow sand bar that would be exposed. And, if the wind stopped.... well, the Pharoah knows what'll happen then. They even showed a scaled-down version of the lake and put a fan and turned it on. After a while the wind had pushed the water across the sand bar and on one side there would've been a swell and on the other side of the sand bar where it was deeper, there still would've been water. One other thing I failed to mention in my previous post was how some people say that with the vastness of the Universe that there must be other life, either that or God create a lot of wasted space and He wouldn't do that (or something to that effect). But, I heard a scientist explain why the Universe is the size it is. If it were any smaller, carbon could not exist and hence life could not exist. Also, all the elements would be of the denser variety, and less dense elements could not exist. If the Universe were any bigger, then less dense elements such as gases would dominate the space and again life would not be possible. That's putting it in VERY simplistic terms, but anyone with experience/knowledge in the field is welcome to take a shot at it. -------------------------- What I find most intersting is that more often than not science goes out of it's way to disprove events in the Bible, and to prove things like evolution. Well, so far evolution has not been proved, and events in the Bible have. hmmmmm.... ------------------ "I have a DREAM.........his name's Hakeem." DREAMer's Rocket Page
