In Godless We Trust

Study: Conservatives’ Trust in Science Has Fallen Dramatically Since Mid-1970s

Trust in Science Has Also Declined Among People Who Frequently Attend Church  

WASHINGTON, DC, March 29, 2012 — While trust in science remained stable among people who self-identified as moderates and liberals in the United States between 1974 and 2010, trust in science fell among self-identified conservatives by more than 25 percent during the same period, according to new research from Gordon Gauchat, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill’s Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research.

“You can see this distrust in science among conservatives reflected in the current Republican primary campaign,” said Gauchat, whose study appears in the April issue of the American Sociological Review. “When people want to define themselves as conservatives relative to moderates and liberals, you often hear them raising questions about the validity of global warming and evolution and talking about how ‘intellectual elites’ and scientists don’t necessarily have the whole truth.”

Relying on data from the 1974-2010 waves of the nationally representative General Social Survey, the study found that people who self-identified as conservatives began the period with the highest trust in science, relative to self-identified moderates and liberals, and ended the period with the lowest.

In addition to examining how the relationship between political ideology and trust in science changed over almost 40 years, Gauchat also explored how other social and demographic characteristics—including frequency of church attendance—related to trust in science over that same period. Gauchat found that, while trust in science declined between 1974 and 2010 among those who frequently attended church, there was no statistically significant group-specific change in trust in science over that period among any of the other social or demographic factors he examined, including gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

“This study shows that the public trust in science has not declined since the mid-1970s except among self-identified conservatives and among those who frequently attend church,” Gauchat said. “It also provides evidence that, in the United States, there is a tension between religion and science in some contexts. This tension is evident in public controversies such as that over the teaching of evolution.”

As for why self-identified conservatives were much less likely to trust science in 2010 than they were in the mid-1970s, Gauchat offered several possibilities. One is the conservative movement itself.

“Over the last several decades, there’s been an effort among those who define themselves as conservatives to clearly identify what it means to be a conservative,” Gauchat said. “For whatever reason, this appears to involve opposing science and universities and what is perceived as the ‘liberal culture.’ So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes ‘us’ conservatives is that we don’t agree with ‘them.’”

Another possibility, according to Gauchat, is the changing role of science in the United States. “In the past, the scientific community was viewed as concerned primarily with macro structural matters such as winning the space race,” Gauchat said. “Today, conservatives perceive the scientific community as more focused on regulatory matters such as stopping industry from producing too much carbon dioxide. Conservatives often oppose government regulation, and they increasingly perceive science as on the side of regulation, especially as scientific evidence is used more frequently in the work of government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and in public debates over issues such as climate change.”

The study also found that the declining trust in science among conservatives was not attributable to changes among less educated conservatives, but rather to rising distrust among better educated conservatives. “It is a significant finding and the opposite of what many might expect,” Gauchat said.

As for the study’s implications, Gauchat said it raises important questions about the future role of science in public policy. “In a political climate in which all sides do not share a basic trust in science, scientific evidence no longer is viewed as a politically neutral factor in judging whether a public policy is good or bad,” said Gauchat, who is also concerned that the increasingly politicized view of science could turn people away from careers in the field. “I think this would be very detrimental to an advanced economy where you need people with science and engineering backgrounds.”

ASA

An interesting read.

~Mooglets

Limbaugh Doubles Down On Sexist Attack Against Sandra Fluke, Demands She Post Sex Tapes Online

LIMBAUGH: “So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.”

Yesterday, as ThinkProgress noted, conservative shock jock and strident women-basher Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown student who House Republicans wouldn’t let testify at a contraception hearing last week, a “slut” and a prostitute. “She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception,” Limbaugh said.

The remarks drew widespread condemnation, with House Democratic Leader Nancy Polosi (D-CA), demanding that “Republican leaders in the House tocondemn these vicious attacks on Ms. Fluke.”

But on his radio show today, Limbaugh showed no remorse and instead reveled in the attention. Referring to Fluke, Limbaugh demanded that women post sex tapes online if they use insurance-covered birth control:

LIMBAUGH: So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.

Listen here:  Youtube Video

Limbaugh also said he found the outrage over his remarks “absolutely hilarious.” He again completely misrepresented Fluke’s testimony, saying, she “went before a Congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them.” In fact, Fluke testimony was about a friend — who is gay — and needed contraception for medical reasons, but was denied coverage by Georgetown, a Catholic university.

He went on to say, “I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much Aspirin to put between their knees as they want” — a reference to Rick Santorum-backer Foster Friess’ home-spun idea of birth control.

Think Progress

To be perfectly honest guys? I thought that quote I put at the top of this article was from The Onion, or some other satirical website. Turns out? It’s real, he really said that, this is actually something that happened.

I am sickened. 

~Mooglets

North Carolina GOP Lawmaker Calls For Bringing Back Public Hangings, Starting With Abortion Providers

The last legal public hanging in America took place in 1936 in Owensboro, Kentucky. The “event” attracted 20,000 people and turned into such a sickening spectacle that many credit it with ending the practice in the U.S.

But one North Carolina Republican believes that as a country we’ve grown soft since banning public hangings and is calling for them to reinstated as a deterrent to crime. If Rep. Larry Pittman had his way, “abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers” would be first in line for the gallows:

Republican Rep. Larry Pittman, who was appointed to the District 82 House seat in October, expressed his views in an email sent Wednesday to every member of the General Assembly. […]

“We need to make the death penalty a real deterrent again by actually carrying it out. Every appeal that can be made should have to be made at one time, not in a serial manner,” Pittman wrote in the email. “If murderers (and I would include abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers, as well) are actually executed, it will at least have the deterrent effect upon them. For my money, we should go back to public hangings, which would be more of a deterrent to others, as well.”

As ThinkProgress reported, last year Republicans in South Carolina, Nebraska, and Iowa pushed legislation that would essentially legalize the murder of abortion providers. Such radical sentiments have been echoed by prominent conservatives like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who said during his 2004 campaign, “I favor the death penalty for abortionists.”

ThinkProgress

Dude, because providing an abortion to someone who really needs it, is exactly the same as taking someone’s life or freedom. 

And I’m not even going to comment on the whole public corporal punishment thing.

I just hope this guy doesn’t actually get any real power.

~Mooglets

House of Representatives Continues to Fuel the Fake “War on Christmas”

This month, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) introduced H. Res. 489, “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected for use by those who celebrate Christmas.” Personally I was unaware that Christmas was in a position in need of protection, but of course it is that time of year when the Religious Right launches an endless stream of rhetoric on the “War on Christmas.”

The resolution, currently with 55 total cosponsors, states that the House “(1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas; (2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and (3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions by those who celebrate Christmas.” At Americans United, we of course agree with these statements taken on their own as well. We strongly advocate for free speech by all individuals and respect the rights of religious people throughout the country. These rights, especially of those practicing popular and majority religions however, are clearly under no threat and claims to the contrary are just blatantly untrue. When the White House is filled with Christmas trees, parades and pageants are taking place across the nation, and the U.S. Senate engages in Secret Santa exchanges, who can fairly say Christmas is being repressed?

We all know that the point of the bill, in reality, is once again to publicly assert the piety of these members and falsely claim that church-state separation is anti-religious. To the contrary, the separation of church and state ensures we can all celebrate any religious holidays important to us, and we don’t need the help of the government to do so.

The government (or in this case the House of Representatives) asserting the importance of Christmas would clearly be endorsing these particular religious beliefs above others. The realthreats to religious freedom at this time of year are in fact often coming from the very people claiming to be victims of “anti-Christmas” sentiment.

Just like the “Reaffirming ‘In God We Trust’” resolution passed last month, this bill is political pandering at its worst and quite simply, a waste of time. Congress should focus on regaining the respect of the American people by dealing with real issues, not by showing off their faith.

Secular News Daily

Rampant Denial About the Threat Posed By Christian Dominionists, Perry and Bachmann: High-profile attacks on progressive reporting about Christian dominionism speak to the power of truth-telling.

Sometimes the truth really is stranger than fiction, at least as perceived by members of a culture removed from a particular truth. Today’s strange truth is the fact of the Christian dominionist influence on the beliefs of right-wing evangelicals, and in particular, on the worldviews of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Texas gov. Rick Perry, two top-tier contenders for the Republican presidential nomination.

Dominionism, an academic term for a strain of evangelical Christianity that mandates believers to take over the institutions of society in order to implement God’s law on earth, flows from the theology of Christian Reconstructionism, whose proponents see as their ultimate goal the reconstitution of biblical law as the law of the land. Although usually less literal than Reconstructionism in its interpretation of God’s law, dominionism can vary from sect to sect in its severity. A common thread in the fabric of many right-wing evangelical sects, dominionism is nonetheless generally viewed as exotic by those mainstream media journalists who dare to describe it in their coverage, while progressive reporters see it a danger to the body politic.

Then there are the deniers, such as Lisa Miller, Newsweek’s religion editor, who stepped forward on the Web site of the Washington Post to reassure readers that all this talk of dominionism and the GOP is just a paranoid fantasy of the left.

A Victory for Progressives

Believe it or not, for progressive reporters, Miller’s high-profile denial is something of a victory, for it means the work of investigative journalists for progressive publications is making its mark on the more mainstream outlets, as when the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza echoed Sarah Posner’s reporting for Religion Dispatches in his profile of Bachmann, or when Michelle Goldberg built on the dogged research of Rachel Tabachnick (writing here for AlterNet) and others for her Daily Beast piece on dominionism’s claim on both Perry and Bachmann.

“Some on the left seem suspicious that a firm belief in Jesus equals a desire to take over the world,” Miller wrote at the Post’s “On Faith” site. Then she went on to say, parenthetically, “Some extremist Christians leveled a similar charge against Barack Obama in 2008, that he was the antichrist aiming to take over world governments.”

To equate dominionism with “a firm belief in Jesus” does a disservice to all those Americans who firmly believe in Jesus, but who also firmly believe in the separation of church and state. To deny the pervasive influence of dominionism on the professed faith of many — perhaps most — on the religious right is to reveal a breathtaking ignorance of American evangelical theology as it has evolved over the past 40 years.

And to equate the fact, proven by diligent reporters and by the theological writings of right-wing religious leaders, of the impact of dominionist ideology on Republican politics with the malevolent, racist fantasy of Obama as anti-Christ should really be a firing offense at any publication whose credibility rests on the conveyance of factual information. But I expect that Miller will keep her job.

Not Just a River in Egypt

As I wrote last week, media people tend to deal with the religious right and its belief systems in one of two ways: either through the lens of exoticism (as if the reporter were an anthropologist visiting some strange and primitive culture), or through denial, because the truth is just too awful and jarring to the worldview of the well-educated, rational reporter. For journalists in the latter category, the America of the religious right is just not the America they know, nor is it the one they care to know.

I’ll spare you a point-by-point takedown of Miller’s insulting and ridiculous piece; Peter Montgomery has done an excellent job of that at Religion Dispatches, and Fred Clarkson further eludicates at the Daily Kos. The larger point is this: the religious right was born of a turn toward dominionism among a certain segment of the evangelical population in the 1960s.

Continue to read this article here.

~Mooglets

Presidential campaign gathers pace for anti-gay Bachmann after Iowa poll win

Republican Michelle Bachmann’s presidential campaign gathered pace on Saturday after the anti-gay candidate won the Iowa Republican Party straw poll in Ames with just under a third of votes.

Bachmann gained 4,823 of the total 16,892 votes cast, beating Republican Ron Paul by just 152 votes, CNN reports. The Minnesota Tea Party candidate told Fox News: “[We] just crossed a very important hurdle, but it’s the first one,” and added that she was “stunned and humbled and thankful and grateful and all the rest.”

Bachmann added in a statement: “Now we turn our attention toward winning the Iowa Caucuses and taking our message of reining in wasteful spending, keeping taxes low, growing our economy and creating jobs to the people of New Hampshire, South Carolina and all 50 states,” 

In June, Bachmann became the first Republican candidate to sign the controversial Marriage Vow pledge fronted by Iowa-based Christian conservative group Family Leader that aims to ban gay marriage and that regards homosexuality as a health risk and a choice rather than a genetic trait.

Bachmann’s husband has also recently been accused of advocating so-called conversion therapy, but denied the claims.

In response to the signing of the pledge, Human Rights Campaign stated on its website: “We’re calling on all of the Republican presidential candidates to speak out against the Bachmanns’ dangerous views and activities before more damage is done.”

Speaking to US publication Star Tribune in 2004, Bachmann once said of gay people: “We need to have profound compassion for people who are dealing with the very real issue of sexual dysfunction in their life and sexual identity disorders.”

From Pink Paper
This woman scares me. 
~Mooglets