Our Godless Constitution

[shanek]

Uhm, no. A rich man asked him what he had to do to get eternal life, and Jesus told him that it wasn't enough to follow the commandments, he also had to give away everything he had to poor.

The phrase appears three times in the Gospels. Once in Matthew 19:

23 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Hard. Not impossible.

Mark 10, same story:

23 Then Jesus looked around and said to His disciples, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26 And they were greatly astonished, saying among themselves, "Who then can be saved?" 27 But Jesus looked at them and said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible."

And Luke 18, 25-28 says the same.

I stand by my interpretation.

 

[shanek]

I'm not too familiar with voting in the US. Can you explain why it would have taken people more time to vote for the candidate they wanted instead of a party?

Because to vote for the candidates you actually have to go down the list checking individual boxes. To vote straight party, it's just one box at the top. Or one button on voting machines.

 

[shanek]

Rubbish. You believe that people only think about the election when they stand in line? People (well, not Libertarians, of course) are simply mindless sheep?

How condescending.

No, Claus, it;s true. I talked to the people goging into the polls. Only a scant few said they had already made up their minds. And a lot of them said they were just going to vote straight Republican.

So stop making claims about things you don't know the first thing about.

 

[shanek]

Which means Bush won with 36% of the registered voters. Not 20%, like you claimed.

Don't you ever check anything??

Nice bit of dishonesty, there, using votes from 2000 but registered voters from 1998. According to the Center for Voting and Democracy, the increase in the number of registered voters between 1998 and 2000 was ten times the increase in turnout. Turnout in some states was as low as 40%. For example, in Arizona, 51% voted for Bush but turnout was only 42%. So he was chosen with only 21.4% of the Arizona vote. Nevada chose him with a close 50% but only had 43% turnout, choosing him by 21.5%. And this assumes that everyone who showed up cast a vote for President; that's certainly not the case.

I think it's time to put you on ignore. You have nothing to offer this forum but lies and personal attacks.

Good-bye, loser.

 

[shanek]

No, you don't know how to properly apply the poll results. If it is split 50/50 that DOES NOT mean 50% will vote for the atheist. It certainly does lok like 50% WILL NOT though as they have already said they would not.

Uh, excuse me? 50% specifically answered "Yes" to "would you vote for that person." They said they would vote for the atheist. You can't have it both ways; you don't get to dismiss the fact that more people said they would vote for the atheist than said they wouldn't.

Of the 50% who may, they may be swayed by party association and issues.

They didn't say they would.

 

[Thanz]

I have presented precisely as much as you have.

Well, no. I have the poll results on my side - you have nothing.

Again, we don't know that. We just know that 49% said "Yes." We don't know how many people said "Don't know." What if that were 15%? Then it would only be 36% who said "No."

Covered elsewhere.

Besides, 49% saying a definitive "Yes" in a country where 90%+ proclaim to be Christian? That should tell you something...

Yes. It telss me that a lot of self-proclaimed Christians do not live by what I would consider Christian principles.

Neither have you. We're both just pointing out effects typical to polls. Neither one of us knows how that plays out in this particular one.

Also, assuming a 5% confidence interval, that means that there's a 1 in 20 chance that the numbers are completely and absurdly wrong.

Hardly a great argument. The trend is consistent over time. I have conceded that there may be problems with polls in general. But you haven't presented a reason why there may be a problem with THIS poll.

Fine. Then don't allow for an exception one way while not allowing for an exception the other way.

I don't think I am. I am just presenting an argument for why someone might say X and do Y, based on perceptions of bigotry. You have just said that people may say Y and do X, which I agree is possible, but I don't see the reason why that would be so. I have asked for the reason, but you haven't provided one.

Well, that weakens your position. Because if that's the case, they won't register a vote for either candidate, while those who are left vote for you.

I don't think it does, as the other guy still gets all the votes from his party. you have to make do with less than full support.

 

[Thanz]

Interesting. I only see asterisks:

Obviously, I am just cooler than you.

What's interesting is that the percentage saying "No" is less (albeit slightly) than the percentage saying "Yes." So then, ceteris paribus, being an atheist would help more than hurt.

I think Lurker has covered this, but this argument makes no sense. If the question is "If your party nominated a qualified candidate for president, would you vote for him?" the answer should be pretty close to 100%. But when you ask them "if your party nominated a qualified candidate for president who was an athiest, would you vote for him?" the support gets cut in half. There is no way this can be seen as helping more than hurting.

(By the way, I'm ignoring the points about the "same party" because it's a bogus point for this question; they're referring specifically to the nominating conventions. So of course you want to ask about only one's own party, and in that you have significantly more than one candidate to choose from!)

I disagree. Here is the question again: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be...An atheist...would you vote for that person?" The question talks about the person nominated (past tense) for president. Not a question of who do you want nominated, or who would you vote for to BE nominated, but rather AFTER the nomination has been decided, your party puts up a generally qualified athiest. Do you vote for him? and the answer is close to 50% no.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nice bit of dishonesty, there, using votes from 2000 but registered voters from 1998. According to the Center for Voting and Democracy, the increase in the number of registered voters between 1998 and 2000 was ten times the increase in turnout. Turnout in some states was as low as 40%. For example, in Arizona, 51% voted for Bush but turnout was only 42%. So he was chosen with only 21.4% of the Arizona vote. Nevada chose him with a close 50% but only had 43% turnout, choosing him by 21.5%. And this assumes that everyone who showed up cast a vote for President; that's certainly not the case.

I think it's time to put you on ignore. You have nothing to offer this forum but lies and personal attacks.

Good-bye, loser.

Ah, the Drama Queen tactics. I'm not surprised.

The Center for Voting and Democracy links to the Federal Election Commission:

States reported a total of 149,476,705 active registered voters for the 2000 federal general election. Active voter registration in those states covered by the NVRA rose slightly to 73.80 percent of the Voting Age Population (VAP) in 2000, as compared with 73.45 percent in 1996, while active voter registration nationwide (including states not covered by the NVRA) declined slightly to 72.63 percent in 2000 from the 1996 all-time high of 72.77 percent.
Source

149 million registered voters. That fits with the 1998 numbers, Wisconsin and North Dakota excluded, plus, of course, the general increase in population size.

So, Bush got 50,461,080 votes. 34% of the registered votes, and not - I repeat: not - as you claimed, 20%.

I have no idea where you got that "ten times" stuff from, but it is clearly fallacious. You have been shown wrong, yet again.

I can understand why you put me on ignore. It won't stop me from pointing out where you are wrong, and where you spin. And I'm being nice here.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, Claus, it;s true. I talked to the people goging into the polls. Only a scant few said they had already made up their minds. And a lot of them said they were just going to vote straight Republican.

So stop making claims about things you don't know the first thing about.

Once again, you extrapolate from your own, very limited experiences. You talk to some people at one polling station, and immediately think that it is representative of the whole country.

 

[Lurker]

Uh, excuse me? 50% specifically answered "Yes" to "would you vote for that person." They said they would vote for the atheist. You can't have it both ways; you don't get to dismiss the fact that more people said they would vote for the atheist than said they wouldn't.

Let me get this straight, you are saying a candidate being an atheist would immediately attract 50% of the vote despite any other positions? Republicans that answered "yes" to this question would vote for an atheist Democrat and vice-versa?

Clearly you have no idea how to apply the poll results. What it tells us is that for many people, a candidate being an atheist would immediately eliminate theem from consideration.

Again, you ignore my other point. What do you think the percentage would be if instead of atheist we used Christian. I posit it would be 99% would vote for a Christian and ~1% (or less never would.

Again, an atheist is limited to 50% of the vote and a Christian is limited to 99% of the vote. No bias against atheists in your mind? Dream on...

Lurker

 

[Lurker]

Shanek:

By the way, at my polling station you had to punch cards and you could not punch one place to get all the candidates of one party. You had to punch for each contest.

I suppose each distrcit has different technology.

Lurker

 

[Kerberos]

Let me get this straight, you are saying a candidate being an atheist would immediately attract 50% of the vote despite any other positions? Republicans that answered "yes" to this question would vote for an atheist Democrat and vice-versa?

Clearly you have no idea how to apply the poll results. What it tells us is that for many people, a candidate being an atheist would immediately eliminate theem from consideration.

Nononono, Shanek is totally right, an atheist would get 49% of the vote, of course a woman would get 95% a black would get 92% and a homosexual would get 59%. So obviously a party should norminate a black, homosexual, atheist woman who would clearly get a whooping 295% of the vote, thus soundly defeating any conventional candidate. Of course even this super candidate would be defeated by a black, homosexual, catholic woman who would get 340% of the vote since catholics enjoy support from 94%. I wonder why no party have ever thought of this brilliant strategy.

 

[shanek]

Well, no. I have the poll results on my side - you have nothing.

Uh, Thanz, the claims are about the poll results. So you can't claim they back you up; that's assuming the conclusion.

Yes. It telss me that a lot of self-proclaimed Christians do not live by what I would consider Christian principles.

Christian principles say not to support non-Christians, even when they're perfect for the job?

What about the Good Samaritan?

Hardly a great argument. The trend is consistent over time.

No, the trend is increasing over time. That means things are getting better.

I have conceded that there may be problems with polls in general. But you haven't presented a reason why there may be a problem with THIS poll.

You haven't presented any reasons why the problems with polls in general don't apply to this one, either.

I don't think I am. I am just presenting an argument for why someone might say X and do Y, based on perceptions of bigotry. You have just said that people may say Y and do X, which I agree is possible, but I don't see the reason why that would be so.

I have explained the reason in great detail.

I have asked for the reason, but you haven't provided one.

That is absolutely not true. I described it in detail, and you responded to it.

I don't think it does, as the other guy still gets all the votes from his party. you have to make do with less than full support.

And again, many Presidents have been elected with less than full support.

 

[CFLarsen]

Total denial.

 

[shanek]

Let me get this straight, you are saying a candidate being an atheist would immediately attract 50% of the vote despite any other positions?

If we take the poll at face value, which all of you are insisting that we do, then yes.

Republicans that answered "yes" to this question would vote for an atheist Democrat and vice-versa?

No, the poll specifically said "your party."

Clearly you have no idea how to apply the poll results. What it tells us is that for many people, a candidate being an atheist would immediately eliminate theem from consideration.

And for many others, it woudln't. It seems to balance out, 50-50.

Again, you ignore my other point.

No, I don't; I've already explained why it's invalid.

No bias against atheists in your mind? Dream on...

I never said this. Cut with the strawmen.

 

[Thanz]

Uh, Thanz, the claims are about the poll results. So you can't claim they back you up; that's assuming the conclusion.

I see what you are saying. But with respect, you are the one with the heavy burden. I am claiming that we should assume that people will do what they say, unless there is a good reason to doubt it. You even agreed with this premise. In order to shift the poll results to any significant degree, you need to come up with a specific reason to doubt their word - something other than polls are sometimes unreliable. That just isn't good enough.

Christian principles say not to support non-Christians, even when they're perfect for the job?

What about the Good Samaritan?

Interesting. The people who I was referring to are the ones who change their vote to "No" based solely on the candidates Athiesm. Why did you assume the other way?

No, the trend is increasing over time. That means things are getting better.

Indeed they are. But they still show a consistent, significant bias against athiests - even more so than against homosexuals.

You haven't presented any reasons why the problems with polls in general don't apply to this one, either.

Perhaps because I am not saying that they don't. But if that is your only argument, it is quite weak. It is simply not enough to shift the significance of the poll. The poll is strong evidence in favour of a particular position. You don't have any contrary evidence, and your only attack on the poll is general instead of specific. That makes your position and argument quite weak.

I have explained the reason in great detail.

I must have missed it. Are you just referring to the general "sometimes people say X and do Y" thing? That is not enough. I need to know WHY you think they would say X and do Y - like I explained why I thought someone would say they would vote for a woman and then not do it.

That is absolutely not true. I described it in detail, and you responded to it.

I am confused then. Can you please indicate the posts you are talking about?

 

[shanek]

I see what you are saying. But with respect, you are the one with the heavy burden. I am claiming that we should assume that people will do what they say, unless there is a good reason to doubt it.

With respect, no, you aren't claiming that at all:

The poll is essentially asking people to own up to their prejudices. I think that in general, people don't want to be thought of as prejudiced or bigoted. For example, someone might say that they would vote for a woman in order to avoid being labelled as sexist in the hypothetical, but in real life they would not vote for the woman. It may not even be overt - the prejudice may manifest in ways that make the person believe they are deciding on some other basis, even if a truly objective analysis of that basis reveals it to be without merit.

It would be naive to think that prejudice has been overcome to the degree suggested by the poll. I think that the 90%+ numbers are unfortunately too high for real life.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

Interesting. The people who I was referring to are the ones who change their vote to "No" based solely on the candidates Athiesm. Why did you assume the other way?

You said it went against Christian principles. That's what I was referring to.

Indeed they are. But they still show a consistent, significant bias against athiests - even more so than against homosexuals.

When did I ever say the opposite?

Perhaps because I am not saying that they don't. But if that is your only argument, it is quite weak.

Your argument quoted above is every bit as weak.

The poll is strong evidence in favour of a particular position.

The poll is a 50-50 split.

I must have missed it. Are you just referring to the general "sometimes people say X and do Y" thing?

I'm referring to the argument that people react differently in different situaitons. When they were asked the question in the poll, the very wording of the question automatically made the candidate's atheism the foremost, nay, the only, issue. I really, truly, and sincerely doubt that it would be such if an atheist candidate were to really run.

That is not enough. I need to know WHY you think they would say X and do Y

I have.

I am confused then. Can you please indicate the posts you are talking about?

This one:

In one situation, we have a hypothetical candidate and the only thing we're told about him is that he's an atheist (other than the vague "otherwise qualified" thing). We're told nothing else about him, and nothing whatsoever about his opponent(s).

In another situation, we have a real-life atheist candidate where the person in question may not even realize he's an atheist because it might not even come up, but who may have all sorts of other things in common with the voter, such as political philosophy, party affiliation, similar background, etc. Here, the person is given a lot more information about the candidate than his religious affiliation (and no one may even be making a big deal about that), and of course they also know about his opponent(s) and, even if they are prejudiced against atheists, may consider him the lesser of two evils. How many people vote on exactly that criteria?

I see it as being the same issue as makes economists evoke ceteris paribus. This effect will take place, as long as all other things are equal. If all other things are equal, the person will vote for a religious person over an atheist. But how often are all other things equal?

Also given the fact that we haven't actually seen the issue come up to know what would happen. Now, I'm not saying there's a good chance we'll have an atheist President in 2008 or anything, just that I'm not comfortable assuming what will happen based on this one poll.

 

[Lurker]

No, the poll specifically said "your party."

And for many others, it woudln't. It seems to balance out, 50-50.

Balance out? How so? If 99% of people say they would vote for a Christian is that balanced out?

Shanek, I fear you and I will go round and round on this. Did you notice you again stand alone in your *odd* interpretation of the poll results? I don't think the denizens of JREF, by and large, are ignorant fools.

Lurker

 

[Lurker]

Let's try another tack here. The question I have is whether a political candidate being atheist is a neutral position.

Think of abortion, if we polled people to ask if they would vote for a candidate that supported abortion we would expect to get some percentage like 40% who say they would and let's say 40% who would not.

Now, is abortion a neutral issue? No, it is not because if the issue were neutral we would expect to see the number of people who would NOT vote for a candidate who supported abortion to be close to 0.

If I have another poll that asked if you would vote for a candidate that was of European ancestry and 99% said they would and 1% said they would not, I would classify European ancestry as a fairly neutral trait.

If I had anotehr poll that asked if you would vote for a candidate that wore jeans from time to time and 100% said they would, I would classify that as a trait that has no impact, or is totally neutral.

So wearing jeans and European ancestry are fairly neutral traits in regards to politics.

Abortion and (dare I say it) atheism are not.

I hope my imperfect example helps.

Lurker

 

[shanek]

Balance out? How so?

Because just as many people would vote for the atheist as wouldn't. I don't understand how people can fail to see that as significant.

[argumentum ad populum deleted]