Conservatism on the skids

I don't know that I buy in to some of this. "...George W. Bush's presidency, as attitudes have edged away from some of the conservative values that fueled GOP..." is a good example. I never thought of GWB as a conservtive, and still don't. I don't equate the GOP with conservatism either. So I'm not sure that we can accurately say conservatism is losing ground. Loyalty to the GOP may be waning, though. Democrats have always led Republicans in registered voters, and I would take any study that says otherwise with extreme care. One can look at elections of 04 and 06 to see this. You have only to look at voter rolls. I think support for family values is down becasue rank-and-file America is consistently sold the "it's all a matter of individual chocie" thing. And Republicans failed time and time again to enact any of their oh-so-heartfelt family agenda. I look at Gen Y hopefully as a generation that will soon be looking for an anchor, i.e. religion. They are the poeple that you've noted are being attracted by Pentecostal movements among others. Rod, I often feel as gloomy as you do now (is there no escaping the Derb effect?), but believe that as the Boomer influence fades, and we cease having a worldview too colored by 1960s nostalgia, things will change for the better.
I look at gov't can't solve my problems/I can't solve my problems as perhaps hopeful in that folks might start looking upwards for answers. And then maybe enacting some reforms that will follow from belief in something greater than man. Or, we might all go down the crapper with Derb.

(So much for the rise of the Religious Left). Your comments are quick to associate virtue with religiousity and then correlate religiosity with political party. I think that if 'religious left' means anything, it was evident in the recent evangelical rejection of Dobson et al. and their narrow view of Christianity. It does not have to have a political party dimension to be effective. I don't see how religious and social conservatism, which reached its apogee of influence in the Bush Administration, is going to be nearly as dominant for decades to come. Alas. Rod, I think you are [slowly] doing what needs to be done: questioning assumptions in the light of your individual experience and our community experience (culture). The 'movement conservatism' that has been dominant since the 70's was not the core of conservatism -- it was only a strongly competitive (as opposed to cooperative) political movement that has turned very authoritarian under the Bush crowd. Efforts to blame individual behavior for the failure by some is a real cop-out. They were part of the culture that was conservative movement. Good ridance to that! If it revives, so much the worse for us all. But I agree that it probably won't.

Starrs: I look at Gen Y hopefully as a generation that will soon be looking for an anchor, i.e. religion. They are the poeple that you've noted are being attracted by Pentecostal movements among others. They are the most secular generation of Americans now alive. You hope they'll be looking for an anchor as they get older, and I hope so too. But the Pew researchers have been periodically conducting this study since 1987, and they've found no change in religious belief/commitment as people get older. That is, if X number of people in the Boomer generation report Y level of religious belief, that number has stayed constant even as they've aged. Which doesn't bode well for the future of religious belief in the decades to come.
And readers who say not to read too much into this, that it only measures adherence to the GOP and Democrats, I'd invite you to read the report at greater length. It also measures belief in certain political positions and principles. Not only are people falling away from the GOP (though not identifying with the Democrats in greater numbers), but belief in certain key socially conservative principles is declining. I wish it weren't so, but there you have it.

"Religious belief among self-identified Democrats is seriously declining." No, it's not. It is declining, but not "seriously" declining. Don't overstate the numbers. The Pew study shows declines in "traditional religious beliefs" among Independents and Democrats. Those people are still quite religious, but instead are less "traditionally religious" when faced with three "black and white" religious questions. Given that Independents and Democrats have become more socially liberal and less traditionally religious, one could argue that it is a reaction to the Conservatives "winning the political battle" but losing the "cultural war." At a time when religious conservatives were at their most powerful politically, people became less religious and more socially liberal.

I think it's probably over, though I usually try to put a better face on it than that. Cultures don't un-rot, at least not when they're as far gone as ours. Not that we're likely to fall spectacularly, but the country will become less and less an actual republic, and quite possibly increasingly evil. Citizenship is almost a dead concept. I wish the post-baby-boomers well but most of them are at least as badly infected. The two constituencies of "I want the government to be my daddy" and "I've got mine and you better not touch it" will grow more and more estranged. Neither is a constituency for reason in public affairs. Racial hostility will rise toward actual violence. 'night.

Susan S: You are right, but not at the leadership levels of the party. You need to read the Bolce and DeMaio studies. They are also celebrating over at the American Humanist Society (or is it Association)?

What would conservatives have to do to win back the independents? Stop living and governing as if profit and market domination was the be-all, end-all of existence. Corporate desire for profit has, in the last 20 years, trumped family, community and state need when it comes to how the country is run and the money is spent. That would be a start, for me.

tv, I couldn't agree more. Especially when so many of these indusries get huge subsidies, incentives, tax breaks, etc. And then they ditch the pensions, cut benefits, etc. I work for a big bank and at a regional meeting a bunch of executives asked why it is so hard to keep good employees. At last I was able to tell someone that nmattered: Because we taught them to act that way! You're not going to take care of them in the long run - so why shouldn't they go from job to job, securing the best they can get?! When did all the CEOs lose their consciences?

Susan, you wrote that "the Republicani party has become dominatted by fundamentalists and religious conservatives". That kind of thing gets said a lot, but speaking as one of that group (gasp!) I feel like what I get is a lot of lip service. I mean, lots of lefties talk about the US theocracy, and the triumph of the church over the state, but that's nonsense. Everywhere you look in this country, religion is under attack, and I'd say that the religious conservatives have precious little to crow about after having a Republican President and Congress for lo so many years. You ought to be thrilled. The only domination the fundamentalists enjoy in the GOP is having our asses kissed first. Then we're kissed off.

Susan S: You switched subjects. I agree totally that there has been a backlash against the Religious Right, creating the new reality of the anti-Evangelical voter. I agree that this has led to AN EVEN LARGER change in the Democratic Party leadership as it has to deal with the secular/religious left coalition in its own midst -- the far-fringe that is it's own version of the Religious Right. Now, when it gets rolling, will there be a backlash against IT?
Maybe.

Kannbrown, we do not fear a Left movement defined or led by atheists, per se. A huge part of the Democratic Left believes all matters of faith should be kept in a shoebox in your closet and trotted out on Sundays only. Otherwise religion has no business being expressed in public life or informing one's worldview outside of church. The point: religion is fine inside a church, but once outside th walls, the federal government must regulate. Soft totalitarianism? How about the propensity of Dem/Left intellectuals like Al Gore to try to just shut off serious debate? How about the grass roots lobbying reform which would put charities not backed by George Soros nut jobs out of business (this is a right and left concern, but designed against conservative Catholic/Prot groups in particular). Hate speech/crime rules. Telling Catholic adoption agencies they must place children with gays or lose privileges?
When the secular Left sees a position it does not like, they seek to cut it off. That's what they're trying to do with religion when it does not conform to what they see as acceptable orthodoxy.
From my own perspective I see too many religious people left and right directly engaging in politics. I do think we need to be careful here, because some of them - again, left and right - leave you feeling that you're somehow less of a Christian unless you accept their position. I bitterly resent that.

Lose privileges? They only lose TAX MONEY.
The fact is, if you want to disengage both sides of the religious debate from politics, then disengaging from tax dollars is a key component. And in none of these cases is anyone who doesn't take government funding affected.
You don't need to keep your religion in a shoebox. You only need to keep it as YOUR religion, and realize it isn't necessarily mine, or my child's.
That's all. Most evidences of 'persecution', seem to involve other people being able to do things around another person that is against their religion, or that if you take tax dollars that everyone contributes, that you have to serve the entire community, including those whom you disagree with. Catholic charities can still handle all the adoptions it wants.. as a fully private agency. Since when is loss of government funding seen as persecution?

I would, and I'm an atheist.

Does this mean we can stop hearing all that 'demographics is destiny' BS?

"Citizenship is almost a dead concept." Actually, citizenship is on the rise. I have met many very politically active young people in the Democratic party. They keep up with news, talk about it, fundraise, go to meetings, go out and get out the vote, write letters to their congress people, etc. And there are plenty of young politically active young people on the right as well. If anything, it seems that they were active before the liberal ones. About religion in society, I believe that liberals only want to apply the golden rule: I will respect my religion as I wish to have mine respected. No one can't stop anyone from reading the bible at school or at work. I often carry a James King bible with me where ever I am. No one can stop you from praying and no one can stop you from making making decisions based on your religion. In fact, I think that one can easily organize prayer groups in most places. The problem is either using public funding or getting endorsement from authorities. And why? Because most people, especially religious ones, don't want to have the government endorsing a religion or giving money to religions that they don't believe in. It is just the golden rule apply to religion beliefs, which the writer of the Bill of Rights had the good sense to include under the first Amendment.

Oh, Catholic Charities gets tax dollars. I know. Our organization deals with them, period. Now, if you're talking that they can't do anything against the law, and that a law has been passed, that's another kettle of fish. As I've heard over and over when talking about Gay marriage, this isn't discrimination. After all, it isn't only being applied to Catholics. Nobody else can discriminate against gays either.
Makes it all fair, right? A Muslim adoption agency would have to follow those rules, a secular one, etc. and so forth. Oh, you want a special exemption for religious institutions, and not getting one is 'persecution', hmm?
And they would be 'practicing their values' on someone else. On that couple, who are NOT of their faith.
You want the absolute right to prevent someone else from doing something because it is against YOUR religion?
Yeah, I can just feel the persecution there.

In other words, I can believe whatever I want, but if I want to convince others of it, or express it publicly as an individual or with a group, that's unacceptable. And while the possibility exists that I'm wronging you, I do believe this is the first time I've seen abortions referred to so coldly as a "health care choice". I do not respect murder. You can express your views publicly, Starr. It's not unacceptable to express our views in America. That's what makes our land so great. However, I hope that you aren't surprised to find that people start pushing back when you try to make laws that will force others to live life according to your views. I I wasn't really thinking of abortion when I said "health care choice." I was thinking more along the lines of assisted suicide or refusing medical treatment. However, I can see how you took it that way, and I think that some abortions do fall under "health care choice." Emergency contraceptive which has the possibility of preventing implantation of a zygote would be one case. Abortion of a fetus for health reasons would be another.

Well, you might want to talk to them again. From their WEBSITE. Q: Where do Catholic Charities agencies receive their funding? In 2000, about 67 percent of funding for Catholic Charities agencies programs comes from state, local, and federal government grants and contracts to provide services such as day care or welfare-to-work programs. Another 14 percent of Catholic Charities funding comes from private support-the church, donors, United Way, and CFC funds. In addition, program fees (10%), investment income (6%), and in-kind income (3%) support Catholic Charities agency programs. http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/about/faqs.cfm Or they can get out of the adoption biz. Or they can lobby for the law to be changed. But should religious entities get special exemptions to follow the law in regards to their authority over the rights of OTHER PEOPLE, who are not members of that religion?

Ok - you have me on the tax money. I confess to have been thinking only about tax money as in a budget line item, not the receipt of monies from a contract for service or grant, and was obviously wrong. Let's say that we tell Catholic Charities they can do what they wan as a private agency, but that means no tax dollars of any kind. If CC cut off the tax funding and then refused to place children with gays, would you have a problem with that?
I mean, yes, CC would be, as you suggest, using their authority over others, but the others are free to go to whatever adoption agency they choose.
In re Muslim cashier: if a Muslim is hired as a cashier with no resonable expectation to handle pork products, and then is forced to, my sympathies are with the cashier. The employer should find him/her another job within the store. But in a grocery setting, unless Muslim or kosher, I'd think handling them is a given.
I'm still concerned about efforts to curtail religious expression; who gets to decide when it infringes on the rights of others?

I agree - if the pharmacy were clear that we don't handle ANY contraceptives, that might be okay, but in principle I think you're right.

Reagan was a limited-populist (R), which worked very well. Rod, I think you've absorbed far too much "coastal" thought-pattern, and too little "heartland." This "X-has-no-religion" stuff is almost laughable on its face; most folks don't "Get Religion" until their first child is born...

It has been just a matter of WEEKS since the media were all consumed with talk of Values Voters. Are we now supposed to believe that the "values" these voters espoused were so superficial that they have disappeared from their political consciousness? Seems most unlikely. More likely, I think, is the reality that self-described conservative politicians were far more into warmongering and lining their pockets than they were into family values. Indeed, some of them did their best to make a mockery of those very values, as the Foley scandal illustrated. In that light, it's hardly surprising to see the public turning back to bread-and-butter issues and/or backing a politician who speaks his mind, even if they don't necessarily share his views.

+ Twenty percent of Generation Y (those born in or after 1977) identify with no religion, making them the most secular American generation living. The religiosity of each generation does not change over time, according to the poll, meaning that Americans are no more or no less secular as they age. Thank god my cohort is blessed with sanity.