And the Survey Says ...
Some atheist bloggers have gotten themselves into an uproar about the scary poll at left.
The American public does, indeed, seem to think in stereotypes, so the results of the survey must tell us something. But what?
If you'll notice, each row fails to add up to 100%. That's probably because the question, as phrased, is way too simplistic. Perhaps the unaccounted-for respondents said, "Well, that depends."
So with the fence-straddlers in mind, I've created the following questionnaire:
If you were asked to choose between the following pair of hypothetical candidates, for which one would you be more likely to vote?
A lying Christian OR a truthful atheist?
A homosexual black woman who strongly opposes gay marriage OR a straight white man who strongly favors it?
A thrice-divorced candidate who claims he believes in the sanctity of marriage OR a candidate who has been happily wed for many years to his one-and-only wife, but who doesn't believe that the institution of marriage is sacred?
A 40-year-old Wiccan who supports the U.S. troop surge OR an 80-year-old Scientologist who wants to bring the troops home now?
A libertarian freethinker who doesn’t believe that the Establishment Clause precludes government vouchers for use in parochial schools OR a liberal Catholic who does believe that the Establishment Clause precludes government vouchers for use in parochial schools, but wants them anyway.
A Jew who panders to evangelical Christians OR an evangelical Christian who panders to Jews?
A Lutheran who prefers a 6-pack of Pepsi bagged in paper OR a Methodist who prefers a 12-pack of Coke bagged in plastic?A hermaphrodite OR a candidate with no sexual organs?
A Nail Fungus who sells anti-infection tablets OR a Gob of Mucus who sells decongestants?
A Gallup poll-taker OR a reader of yak entrails?
Hey, Exterminator, I enjoyed reading this.
9 comments:
Two top-notch blog posts in a row. I'd take a truthful atheist over a lying Christian anyday. Doesn't take much to learn to sound humble, discreet, and worthy; it takes quite a bit to live it.
One question remains when it comes to politics: where does truth really enter into the equation anymore?
--
As for the rest, I think they're either too unlikely to ever occur, or too time consuming to answer.
Adam (or shall I call you Diogenes?):
You ask the rhetorical question: ...when it comes to politics: where does truth really enter into the equation anymore?
Excellent question. I might change "anymore" to "ever," but, then, I suspect I'm somewhat more cynical than you are.
I'm disappointed, though, that you think some of my options are unlikely to run for president. Given the candidates on both sides, I don't think a voter could pick anything better than the gob of mucus.
Ha! We already have a gob of mucus in the White house.
Let me turn the question around on you, Ex. Who would you vote for: a lying atheist, or an honest Christian?
Adam:
I'd vote for an honest Christian, with the provisos that s/he (1)uphold the First Amendment and (2)refrain from making governmental decisions based on religious views.
Otherwise, I'd probably have to go with the yak entrails guy.
In the meantime, we've got almost two years left with our booger-in-chief. Pass the tissues.
What do you consider a valid and correct adherence to the first amendment?
--
I've been thinking about something you wrote in your first reply to my first comment:
"Excellent question. I might change 'anymore' to 'ever,' but, then, I suspect I'm somewhat more cynical than you are."
I don't know if 'ever' is the correct term in a world that has had Cincinnatus has come to power.
Adam:
Your references tire me out. You had to go all the way back to the 400s B.C.E. to find a legendarily truthful leader? All right, add the words since antiquity after ever.
As for my attitude about the First Amendment, stop playing dumb. If you've been reading what I've written at all, you know that I believe the government should have NO role in religion whatsoever, neither favoring nor disfavoring any one religion, or all religions as opposed to no religion. In short, the government should not be in the religion business at all. This means that tax monies cannot be spent supporting or encouraging religion in any way whatsoever, even indirectly. To trot out my own obscure reference: You can find a good statement of my sentiments by reading Justice Rutledge's dissent in Everson v. Board of Education.
I remind you that Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation is scheduled for oral argument tomorrow morning. Expect a post from me sometime within the following 24 hours.
I'd go for the yak entrail reader everytime.
It takes some serious talent to read yak guts.
You're right though, there are way too many variables that the poll didn't consider.
I vote for the 80 year old Scientologist, but only if the vice president is a truthful atheist. With any luck the 80 year old will croak in the first couple of months after L Ron's mob gets through trying to squeeze him for favors and FDA approval of the E-Meter. Then the VP can sail on to reelection in
3 1/2 years and we'll have nearly a decade of enlightened leadership.
Nick:
Your comment made me laugh out loud.
In the process, unfortunately, I screwed up my E-meter reading, so now I don't know which of my lives I'm in. I hope it's not that damn 12th century again! Every time I go back there, I run into John Travolta trying to teach the peasants how to do the hustle.
Post a Comment