Nicq MacDonald wrote:
>
> > The possibility of a "christian moral revolution" in the US is very real.
> > Fundamentalists are 30-40% of the population, growing, a majority in
> > some areas, and could reasonably take control of the national
> > government, as they largely control the Republicans. It's happened
> > twice before in the US. A "hindu moral revolution" has basically
> > taken over India recently. A libertarian moral revolution is IMO
> > also quite possible but it's far from realization, unlike these
> > religious ones.
>
> This same phenomenon is occuring in Israel, as the fundamentalist Jewish
> population is growing at a rate outstripping that of the more liberal, urban
> jews at a rate of almost 6:1.
Such movements don't tend to maintain coherence beyond one or two
generations unless they remain highly isolated. Now, it seems the fundie
jews are probably feeling the pressure from the even higher reproductive
rates of the arab israelis and palestinians, who express even more
extreme fundamentalist rhetoric.
The problem with the scenario in the US is the assumption that the
'christian morals' are consistent across all 'christian' groups. They
are not, and I doubt very much the statistics claiming that fundies make
up 30-40% of our population. Relying on polls to determine an
individual's status as a 'fundie' or not is really poor statistical
practice. There is a significant difference between a fundamentalist and
your average ignorant fool. One is dangerous by intent, the other by
neglect.
Nor is relying on sect membership a good indicator of the 'fundie'
population. Another thing to consider is that the definition of what is
a 'fundamentalist' tends to be declared by the major media, who are not
disinterested non-partisan moderates in this respect. To a man (and
woman), members of the mainstream media, while seeming to accept without
question the media's influence on public opinion, politics, and the
progress of elections as a divine right, vehemently decry's the right of
religious or conservative organizations to have anything approaching a
fraction of the same level of influence on our governmental and
political process.
They also play the LP like a top, using the 'legalize pot' gambit
perennially to demonstrate to voters that third parties are by and large
loonybins, and that they should put their faith in the democratic party.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:33 MDT