Re: Re: Not in Search of the “Salt of the Earth” (Re:
On Dec 3, 2006, at 5:01 PM, Jim Straub wrote:
I like the religion discussion happening. Many interesting and
useful things being said. Many empty generalizations and baldly
wrong things as well. For instance, Doug cited a study claiming
the declining relevance of religion in US political life. Doug, I
can offer you a very convincing bit of proof to the contrary: US
political history for the past 10 years.
More than that, even. I was just recalling to Liza watching Pat
Robertson & Jim Bakker on my freshly installed cable TV in
Charlottesville, Va., in 1978, and thinking they were hilarious.
They had quite a run after that. But I didn’t cite a study on the
declining relevance of religion; I quoted Gallup as saying that
religion had less prominence in the American mind than it did a few
decades ago. In 1952, 75% said religion was “very important” to them
in their daily lives; the latest reading is 57%, at the low end of
the last 30 years. Further, Gallup’s Frank Newport writes:
The most significant differences in self-reported importance of
religion come at the extreme ends of the age spectrum. Less than
half of Americans between age 18 and 29 say that religion is very
important, while more than one-fifth say it is not important. By
sharp contrast, more than 70% of those age 65 and older say
religion is very important in their lives, while only 9% say that
it is not important.There is little significant difference between 30- to 49-year-olds
and 50- to 64-year-olds in self-reported importance of religion.As is usually the case when considering age, one is faced with
considerations of a cohort versus generation effect. It is
reasonable to assume that older Americans have functional or
rational reasons for embracing religion, given that they have seen
more of life’s frustrations and sorrows, and that they are nearing
life’s endpoint of death. At the same time, data show that all
Americans were more religious decades ago than they are now, making
it reasonable to assume that those who are older today may have
acquired their religion at an early age in a way that will not be
duplicated as the current younger cohort of Americans ages. The share of seculars doubled in the 1990s - why don’t we hear more
about that? Doug also says white evangelicals are politically hopeless (I agree
with most of what doug had to say besides these two points). But
that’s like saying the white working class is hopeless, or writing
off workers who’ve voted Republican— I know what you’re saying
and where you’re coming from, but dispensing with extremely large
segments of workers in the US is a meaningless exercise, of no use
in organizing or politics.
Well I was exaggerating, but still, one’s energy is limited, and I
don’t think it’s promising to spend time trying to court people who
vote 70% Republican. I mean trying to develop a mode of address
tailored to them, not working with them if you’re organizing them as
workers, or should some of them get worried about global warming. In
those situations, they could be friends.
Doug