Relevant Magazine - a Christian magazine aimed at young evangelicals - has just released a new online poll of their readers. Since this is an online poll it has to carry certain caveats, most notably it is not a scientifically representative poll. That said, it is still a fascinating look at what some young evangelicals are thinking these days.
And the thing that jumps out?
They think Jesus would vote for Barack Obama... and Mike Huckabee:
Who would Jesus vote for?Barack Obama 28.7%
Dennis Kucinich 2.8%
Mike Gravel 0.2%
John Edwards 4.7%
Joe Biden 1.4%
Hillary Clinton 1.8%
Mike Huckabee 24.2%
Rudy Giuliani 4.3%
Fred Thompson 6.0%
Ron Paul 15.6%
Mitt Romney 3.7%
John McCain 6.6%
Of further note:
1. Who do you think was a better president?Bill Clinton 55.4%
George W. Bush 44.7%2. Which of these issues do you feel is most important for presidential policy?
Abortion 23.1%
Gay rights 3.7%
Church and state issues 14.3%
Bioethics 18.5%
Illegal immigration 40.4%3. Which of these issues do you feel is least important for presidential policy?
Abortion 11.5%
Gay rights 35.7%
Church and state issues 26.6%
Bioethics 15.5%
Illegal immigration 10.7%
Again, these results are derived from thousands of Relevant's online readers - a group comprised largely of under-25 evangelicals.
Relevant's founder and publisher Cameron Strang had this to say about the poll: “The readers poll confirmed things we’ve been hearing for quite some time. Young Christians simply don’t seem to feel a connection to the traditional religious right. Many differ strongly on domestic policy issues, namely issues that affect the poor, and are dissatisfied with America’s foreign policy and war.”
The old religious right is dead. The new one is being formed. If young evangelcials have anything to say about it chances are high it will not look a lot like the old one.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Cato, I'll answer your question to plane with another scenario:
Let's say you're just a regular working joe or jane in need of a life-saving surgical operation which will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars for hospital, doctor, etc. The insurance company won't pay for it. They didn't say you couldn't have the operation, they just said they won't pay for it. Is there a moral difference?
PatientWitness: Are you saying there is no moral difference between banning a life-saving operation, and funding it? I would say there is. And do not assume that a single-payer (government-run) health care system, such as in Canada or Great Britain, would rush in and pay for every such operation. When health care becomes free for everybody, rationing becomes even more prevalent.
Incidentally, I'm not an absolute libertarian. I do believe that the government should provide, for instance, health care to those who cannot afford insurance. I believe in a social safety net funded by the government. Where we probably disagree is just how comfortable or extensive that net should be. I think that at some point, it goes too far, both from a moral and practical perspective (as welfare reform demonstrated).
Hi Cato,
Of course there's a moral difference. I was just answering your question to plane with an analagous scenario because I couldn't fathom your position. Something the politicians of both stripes and corporate leaders understand is that excluding funding for something is effectively the same as banning that something, despite the fact that they may say no such ban is in place.
I've seen no studies that point to health care rationing for necessary procedures in countries that have government sponsored health care programs. There are anecdotes, certainly, especially from the early days of the Canadian system. But almost everyone under such systems reports being pleased with their system and would not want to have our American system. What does that tell you? Even more telling is the simple fact that too many people here are not covered by insurance, for whatever reason, and the number increases each year. What we have now doesn't work for too many people, and too many people die because of lack of care. That's inexcusable.
I'm sorry, but if you think this makes sense -- "excluding funding for something is effectively the same as banning that something" -- then there's just no debate. Have you been to the supermarket lately?
As for our health care system, I'm not saying that it is perfect, or that more couldn't be done to help people get insurance. But to have the same people who operate the DMV and the post office run our health care? I don't think so.
I don't see what's nonsensical about that concept, Cato. If you want something but don't have the money for it, you can't have it. This applies to supermarket shopping just the same as to university research. You are effectively banned from it whether or not any such actual ban exists. Politicians and others who control purse strings know this works, and you should as well if you want to avoid being taken advantage of.
And I'm sure all the people who have suffered and will suffer for lack of health care will rest easier knowing that you don't have to stand in line. Your rationale against government health care is the lamest of all. Yes, going to the DMV or the post office can be time-consuming in some regions but the systems work. You get your license, you get your registration, you get your mail. The answer to having long lines is to create more providers, either DMV offices and workers or in the case of health care more doctors offices and clinics. Such health care programs work elsewhere and can be made to work here. Perhaps you could even keep your private health insurance and stroll regally to the head of the line.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.