The Fake Americans Take Charge
All jokes about “real” versus “fake” America aside, the roots of the “real” narrative are, in fact, real enough. The Republican Party is, at this point, the party of America’s white Christian plurality. The Democratic Party is, by contrast, the party of non-whites and of white non-Christians. There are, of course, white Christian Democrats. But most Democrats are black, Hispanic, Asian, irreligious, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or (like me) several of the above.
Chris Bowers summarizes some of the key facts:
- Roughly 60% of all Democratic voters are now non-white and / or non-Christian (per exit polls).
- Democrats hold a 3-1 margin among non-whites and / or non-Christians (per exit polls)
- Non-whites and / or non-Christians now compose 39% of the electorate, their highest total ever (per exit polls)
- Over 60% of the country under the age of 43 is non-white and / or non-Christian (Source). Many commenters will justifiably ogle the huge, pro-Obama youth vote this year, but really the non-white and / or non-Christian vote are deeply intertwined.
a - Over 100% of the population growth in America comes from non-whites and / non-Christians. That is, the white Christian population in America is actually slowly declining, even though the population of the country is still increasing on right pace with average world population growth. (Source)
He says:
In this context, Obama’s victory should not be seen as a historical fluke created by the confluence of disastrous Republican governing, a 2004 Illinois Senate field that collapsed around him, and a great speech at the Democratic convention four years ago. It is, instead, a harbinger of America’s future.
In other words, it’s the Emerging Democratic Majority, America’s demographic chickens coming home to roost.
But it has this consequence. When you ask if the typical American is white or non-white, the answer is “white.” And if you ask if the typical American is Christian or non-Christian, the answer is “Christian.” And if you ask how the typical white Christian votes, the answer is “for the Republican Party.” Thus by a certain logic, the typical American is a Republican and we live in a center-right nation. On another level, this is at least part of the reason why so many progressives find Barack Obama personally exciting.
The typical national Democratic campaign features a white person who at least professes devout Christian faith fronting for a political coalition that’s mostly composed of minority-Americans. Add on the fact that it’s usually a man leading a party whose voters are mostly women and things only get more severe. That’s sound political strategy in many ways — the most successful leader of the New Deal coalition of Southerners, Catholics, and Jews was northern Protestant Franklin Roosevelt who was able to help expand the brand’s appeal. But one likes to see oneself reflected in one’s coalition leaders. So a JFK, an Obama, is very exciting — not only to black voters (or, in the right moment, Catholic ones) but really to all members of the pluralist coalition. It’s a reaffirmation that we, too, are all Americans and not some kind of second-rate hangers-on who need a white (ideally southern) Christian to help shield the public from our ickiness.
83 Responses to “The Fake Americans Take Charge”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Amen.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
yup. well said.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
notable that obama has no practicing christians in the immediate generation before him (his maternal grandparents were protestant in origin, but shifted to unitarianism). additionally, his sister maya is a buddhist, who is married to a chinese canadian (his half brother is married to a chinese woman).
November 5th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Very insightful – thanks.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
But one thing about Obama is that his Christian faith was featured heavily by his campaign in constructing his wholesome image. I always found that disturbing (NOT that he’s a Christian, but that it appears to still be necessary for American national political candidates, especially “exotic” ones, to make ostentatious displays of “faith” in order to demonstrate their decency and authenticity.)
November 5th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “It’s a reaffirmation that we, too, are all Americans and not some kind of second-rate hangers-on who need a white (ideally southern) Christian to help shield the public from our ickiness. ”
————–
You mean like Bill Clinton?
Ha ha ha. You crack me up, Matthew.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Besides — what’s “Christian”??
Protestants –who don’t recognize the Pope?
Catholics? –who don’t recognize the Protestant mass?
Or Southern Baptists ? –who don’t recognize each other if they meet in the whorehouse.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
This just goes to show how stupid the McCain campaign was. They didn’t just run a divisive campaign, they ran a divisive campaign that had no plausible way of working based on the demographics. The numbers in “real America” just aren’t there for the Republicans.
Hopefully they will continue to be blind to this reality for a while.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I’m betting “white Christians” still have a plurality in the Dem party. But nice enough point.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
The difference between a majority and a plurality will complicate what you’re saying here for a long time to come, maybe forever. White Christians will soon be less than 50 percent of America, but they’re* getting replaced by the famous melting pot rather than one particular demographic group. I don’t know how this will matter – maybe it won’t at all – but white Christians might remain the archetypal Americans until we’re all a nice shade of brown.
Cue superdestroyer whining about permanent Democratic hegemony in three comments… two… one…
* I almost wrote “we’re”, because I am a white guy, but I’m an atheist rather than a Christian, so I get to claim some slight degree of minority status. Yay me!
November 5th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Is this entry a spoof of some sort? where’s the data that indicates that 60% of all Democrats are agnostics, Jews, Moslems, Animists, Buddishts, Hindus, atheists, etc.? Even if that were true, a 60/40 split doesn’t mean the party is non-Christian, just inclusive.
Are you sure you are differentiating between born-agains and the other 90% of the world’s Christians? That group has the bad habit of referring to themselves as “Christians” as though all the Catholics, Presbyterians, and Orthodox Christians didn’t really exist.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
In other words, it’s the Emerging Democratic Majority, America’s demographic chickens coming home to roost.
cue superdestroyer, in 3…2…
November 5th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Cyrus: Cue superdestroyer whining about permanent Democratic hegemony in three comments… two… one…
holy crap… great minds, or something.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Re: That is, the white Christian population in America is actually slowly declining
Yes, Yglesias, and do you know why that is? It in large part because you people have created a culture that denigrates motherhood, procreation, and obedience to the natural order, and celebrates sex as nothing more meaningful than a recreational pastime.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
It in large part because you people have created a culture that denigrates motherhood, procreation, and obedience to the natural order, and celebrates sex as nothing more meaningful than a recreational pastime.
You people?
November 5th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Re: Over 100% of the population growth in America comes from non-whites and / non-Christians.
Either I am reading this wrong or this is another famous Matt blooper. How can we have “over 100%” here? Is 100% all of a phenomenon?
November 5th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Either I am reading this wrong or this is another famous Matt blooper. How can we have “over 100%” here? Is 100% all of a phenomenon?
If the white Christian population is in a decline, then over 100% of the overall population growth is coming from non-whites or non-Christians. For example, if white Christian population goes from 100 -> 98, and non-white non-Christian population goes from 100 -> 104, the population growth was 1% (200 -> 202) and the non-white non-Christian population growth, as a percentage of the population, was 2%.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
But, Hector, either 1) God is not powerful enough to prevent this decline or 2) God wills it because he’d rather have quality than quantity.
2), I believe, is Benedict XVI’s argument. But either way I don’t understand why you’re so upset. Didn’t Jesus practically guarantee his followers would be thrown in jail? And that that would be a good thing? Does anyone in the gospels who holds political power come off well?
November 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
@ Hector
Yes, because only white Christians respect motherhood and procreation and white Christians only have sex within the confines of marriage for the purposes of procreation. The rest of the unwashed masses of humanity are degenerate pervs.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
In response to Matthew’s comment “That is, the white Christian population in America is actually slowly declining”
Hector responded
“Yes, Yglesias, and do you know why that is? It in large part because you people have created a culture that denigrates motherhood, procreation, and obedience to the natural order, and celebrates sex as nothing more meaningful than a recreational pastime.”
————–
Actually, I thought it was because American Catholics betray their fellow countrymen and agitate/plot/push to admit millions of their fellow Catholics from South of the border via illegal immigration.
Thereby driving household incomes/wages down and pushing millions of American families into poverty. If both Mom and Dad have to work their asses off just to provide for two kids, they’re too tired when they get home to screw and make a third.
By “natural order” I suppose Hector’s is referring to the Pope’s strategic decision: That since Catholicism can’t be propagated by faith and reason –because it doesn’t pass the laugh test with many people — then it can be spread by outfucking its competitors.
Plus the ensuing deep poverty and wars resulting from overpopulation and famine usually drive people deep enough into mental depression that they will listen to any line of bullshit if it comes accompanied by a warm bowl of soup.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Re “celebrates sex as nothing more meaningful than a recreational pastime.”
I’ve known some Catholics who had nothing against recreational sex. To the contrary, in fact.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
It would take too long to respond in full to MattY’s latest stupidity, but I’ll point out that – just as there are many countries in the Balkans – there are many groups in Barack’s America. And, I’m in one of them!
November 5th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
As a gay person, I’m feeling a bit second-rate hanger-on-ish today.
I am incredibly happy for Obama’s win. I just hope I don’t have to wait till I’m 108 for the LGBT equality barrier to so demonstrably altered.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I was struck today by a phrase I read in a comment elsewhere: “Morning in America for the rest of us.”
And about time too, though it is still more of a promise than a reality.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
“Re: That is, the white Christian population in America is actually slowly declining
Yes, Yglesias, and do you know why that is? It in large part because you people have created a culture that denigrates motherhood, procreation, and obedience to the natural order, and celebrates sex as nothing more meaningful than a recreational pastime.”
Actually Hector, if this charge were true, then it should actually be the white Christian population which is increasing, because, of course, the non- “white Christian” part of the population is delaying having kids (if they have them at all) because they just loves themselves some abortions.
But seriously folks. I take the point that the Republican party has branded itself into a corner demographically, and that demographic trends should tend to work against at least the current Republican coalition in the near and far term (although don’t count out the possibility that a new, young generation of Republicans will see the demographic trends and try to alter their core values; I don’t see it happening for 10-20 years, but it probably will happen eventually). But there actually are a significant number of white Christians who are also quite progressive, and part of the reason the young voters among my large pool of evangelical friends has been trending Democratic is precisely because they are sick of Bush/Republican intolerance of the other, rape of the environment, etc., and they do so primarily on biblical grounds. If demography is destiny, this currently small group of what could be called the Christian left will almost certainly be growing more into the future. So it’d be better to not turn them off right now by bluntly stating that the Republican party is the natural home of white Christians. You’ve just convinced them to join your side, so don’t chase them away. Quite frankly, Obama wouldn’t have won the election if he hadn’t gotten a substantial portion of white Christian votes. So while I don’t think we’re a majority of the Democratic party, we’re still indispensable if you actually want to win many elections. And the way to court us is to simply continue to push a progressive agenda, but do it without these needless attacks on Christianity.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Shorter Hector: “why does ‘wanna get pregnant and barefoot?’ not work as a chat-up line?”
November 5th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Kyle,
Your point is well taken. I wrote that in a hurry, without really reading Yglesias’ post, or reflecting on it. I’m sorry about that.
I do maintain, however, that modern American culture is in many ways deeply hostile to children and procreation.
I’d consider myself on the Christian left, as I do generally vote Democratic (I voted for Nader on Tuesday), and aside from some of the social issues generally favor left-wing causes.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Obama got most of his votes from white folks like me. The difference is that non-white voters vastly favor the Democrats.
It is hard to explain Obama’s victory on changing demographics, because they don’t change that much over four years.
He is just an appealing candidate to many people of any background.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Let’s see, Obama takes 60% of his votes from either non-whites or non-christians… by derivation, this means 40% of his votes come from white Christians, right? And wouldn’t this make that group probably the largest single group identified along racial and religious lines within the Obama coalition? You suggest this means white Christians are being marginalized, but I don’t see it… after all, if all those white Christians voting for Obama, had voted McCain, we’d have a much different scenario. The fact is, even now as we head forward with a more non-white, non-Christian coalition than we had previously (which, to be clear, is a great, great thing), the Democrats still owe their success in no small part to the religious whitey faction. You can bet they will fight to keep that faction.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Apparently God wanted it this way, Hector.
November 5th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I’m not sure your conclusions about the role of religion follow, Matt. It’s true that Democrats didn’t have to court white evangelicals, but 40% of the voters are white-and-Christian, and surely part of that 60% is non-white-and-Christian. (Perhaps Hispanic Catholics. Unless you’re not counting Catholics as Christians.)
I don’t think we need a white Southern Baptist to win the White House (OBVIOUSLY. WOOOOOO!), but anecdotally, Obama’s ability to talk about faith passionately swung a few votes his way. Not making the Republican party the only one that acknowledges religion is likely to be part of a winning strategy for a long time.
November 5th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
An insightful comment above that the Dems must now keep in mind:
“This just goes to show how stupid the McCain campaign was. They didn’t just run a divisive campaign, they ran a divisive campaign that had no plausible way of working based on the demographics. The numbers in “real America” just aren’t there for the Republicans.”
60% of President-elect Obama’s coalition may be non-white or non-Christian, just like 60% of the Republican coalition is White and Christian, but when you glorify that 60% in a way that makes the other 40% feel excluded, you quickly find that your group is 100% of a rump.
Likewise, perhaps the biggest story of the election, numbers-wise was that President-elect Obama – with an assist from Republicans in the primaries – flipped the Hispanic vote. This was laudable, but that President Bush did so well amongst them previously should suggest that the loyalty of this coalition should not be taken for granted.
November 5th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
OK so our Blogger manages to be a non(White Christian) 3 ways being hispanic, Jewish and Irreligious. Can anyone beat that ?
I think it is important to note that the list of how to be non Christian has a big gap. The options aren’t limited to Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu and irreligious (hey when is The One who isn’t gonna give us our capital letter ?). I’m not talking about Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Wiccan and animists, there are a lot of people who are “spiritual” (no I don’t know what they mean either) or who are sure there is a God but “don’t identify with organized religion”. That is there are lots of people who are definitely religious but don’t belong to any particular religion.
This isn’t a personal complaint, I am a lilly white atheist and find myself on the list .
November 5th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
great post
November 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Two quick thoughts:
(1) I hope we can eventually dispense with this nonsense about winning and losing demographic groups–it really just leads to poorly-thought conclusions about what it takes to win elections. So although of course running up the score among non-whites and/or non-Christians was very important, Obama also depended in part on having a lot of white Christians in his coalition, whether or not he won that group. And Obama was in part a great candidate because he was able to appeal to the necessary number of such people while still getting enthusiastic support from the rest of his coalition.
(2) The below-replacement birth rate of native-born Americans has very little to do with any specific cultural issues. Rather, industrialization and urbanization lead to below-replacement birth rates, pretty much across history and across cultures. The likely explanation is economic in nature: with industrialization and urbanization the benefits of children as a source of labor decline and the costs of feeding and housing children increase (and note that each procreating couple just opting for one or two children instead of more is enough to drop the birth rate below replacement). So, cities have almost always depended on immigration for population growth, and in turn sufficiently urbanized countries will need to do the same, and as far as I know there have been no notable exceptions.
November 5th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I do maintain, however, that modern American culture is in many ways deeply hostile to children and procreation.
In all honesty, nearly everyone I’ve come across is the exact opposite of hostile to children. In fact men who are in more “traditional” relationships make more money, controlling for hours worked and experience, than men who are in more “progressive” relationships. In what specific ways is American culture deeply hostile to children and procreation?
November 5th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
So, Democrats are the emerging power, the majority constructed of disparate factions with a somewhat common set of goals. Non-Christians are a key sub-group. OK, let’s see how far up the ladder a proud, avowed, openly talkative about his personal moral code atheist can rise. Yeah, right, you think maybe dog catcher might possibly be the limit of his success? If that? I say you declare you’re an unapologetic atheist and you’re done, cooked, finished with national aspirations. So much for Democrats being the party of non-Christians. Sounds like an urban legend to me.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I just hope I don’t have to wait till I’m 108 for the LGBT equality barrier to so demonstrably altered.
at least the LGBT’s are ahead of the atheists…
November 5th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Steve Duncan is right that “non-Christian” doesn’t really function politically like “non-white.”
But that said, this is a really insightful post by Matt. It revisits a topic he touched on a few days ago when he blogged about “Charles meets Barack.” But this time, I think, he gets it right.
Progressives *are* sick of having to be represented by a “front man” who is always white, Southern, and male. I’m actually a white guy, originally from the South — and even *I’m* sick of it!! Barack’s victory feels like an affirmation of our community, whose breadth has never really been represented in the White House.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:05 am
“at least the LGBT’s are ahead of the atheists…”
I’m a straight atheist, and, not really. We can get married and adopt, no problem. All we can’t do is get elected President, and right now LBGTs can’t either.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Sarah Palin: “God will do the right thing on election day”
Hell yeah! Way to go God!!
November 6th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Oh dear! I’m a 58 yo caucasian raised by parents whose unthinking racist and fascist leanings failed to stop me from critical thinking about the world we live in. I guess I was fortunate that my embrace of socialism fell short of joining the UK communist party. Otherwise, I would not (at age 47) been able to immigrate into the USA and become a citizen.
I’m so happy to discover that I’m becoming a minority.
November 6th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Um, Hispanics are not Christians?
November 6th, 2008 at 2:05 am
India is mostly a Hindu country, mostly a Hindi speaking country, and is demographically dominated by the Ganges river system. And the BJP is the party of Hindi speaking Hindus, and is strong in the states along the Ganges.
The BJP also gets beaten half the times because Congress and the other parties have been able to position themselves as the party of any Indian who is not Hindu or Hindi speaking. I see the US falling into a similar pattern.
Strategically, it makes more sense for obvious minorities to vote as a block than for people in the demographic majority. If you are in the demographic majority, you know that the government will always have to pay some attention to your group’s interests.
November 6th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Ed,
You say: If you are in the demographic majority, you know that the government will always have to pay some attention to your group’s interests.
That’s a good point, and I think it helps explain why college-educated whites in particular were willing to join Obama’s coalition in large numbers. To be blunt, as a member of that group, I have long been aware that even if the pendulum swings quite a bit, our society is still likely to remain quite favorable for the likes of me.
November 6th, 2008 at 7:12 am
the real question for the long run is what will governance and politics be like in a one party U.S. where non-whites are in the majority?
November 6th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I’m seeing a commercial–a single image, Liddy Dole downcast, the words appearing on the screen are “Shamed”, “Defeated 54-46,” “Humiliated.” And then “QED:”
The voiceover, a woman’s voice: “There is a God”
November 6th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Re: India is mostly a Hindu country, mostly a Hindi speaking country, and is demographically dominated by the Ganges river system.
Not true, only a little over 40% of Indians speak Hindi as their mother tongue. Plenty more speak languages _related_ to Hindi, or speak Hindi as a second language, of course.
Congress certainly claims to be the party of religious tolerance, but I don’t think they really play the language politics game much. Nehru, after all, was the one who tried to push the unpopular policy of having Hindi be the sole national language. Linguistic nationalism, as I understand it, is more the stock in the trade of the regional parties, like the DMK and its various offshoots.
Also, unlike the U.S., India is not a two-party system. Congress and the BJP are the biggest two, but various Communist, Socialist, regionalist, linguistic-nationalist and populist parties hold a good number of seats in Parliament and chief ministerships of States.
November 6th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Great post Matt–if a little mind-bending. As a lifelong independent I recently joined the Dems to establish a clearer delineation between myself and Republicans. I didn’t want to be understood as a “maybe” Repub.
And here I thought I did it because the Repubs are the icky ones.
November 6th, 2008 at 9:52 am
There was a time when Irish, Italian and Poles were not in the “Real American” club. It will expand. Christian Asians and Hispanics who speak fluent English are next on the list of invitees.
November 6th, 2008 at 9:54 am
njorl,
Hispanics are really the new blacks. In a few years they will be voting in overwhelmingly Hispanics districts at a 90% rate for Democrats. Asians are the new Jews. They will keep voting Democratic no matter their income or occupation.
The problem for the Republicans is that there are no new demographic group to be the next mormons.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
We’ll eventually have a viable conservative party in the United States again, even if that means it has to be a majority-minority conservative party. The structure of our political system effectively mandates such a result in the long run.
Of course that leaves several open questions, such as what “conservative” will mean in that context, and how we will get there from here, and how long that will take, and so on.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:00 am
DTM, I agree we will, but I can’t see the existing conservative coalition, with its evangelical spearhead, maintaining in the long-run. IMO, the Obama admin. will promulgate an infrastructure of progressive laws similar to that put forward by FDR and LBJ, and as the conservative spent most of the 20th century running against that infrastructure, they will use health care as their next boogeyman.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Hector,
you people have created a culture that denigrates motherhood, procreation, and obedience to the natural order, and celebrates sex as nothing more meaningful than a recreational pastime.
When social conservatives like yourself say this sort of thing it serves to remind me that their opposition to abortion is not based on believing that a fertilized egg is endowed with rights, an idea that doesn’t pass the laugh test or the one’s innate moral instinct, it’s just that you want to control female sexuality.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I point to two main reasons for the decline of white Christians:
1. Partly white people are counted as non-white (e.g. Barack Obama). This means that even if the overall amount of white ancestry in the population doesn’t decrease, the proportion of 100% white people will.
2. Christianity isn’t genetic or immutable. Lots of people whose parents are Christian convert away from it for a wide variety of reasons. Conversions *to* Christianity mostly come from other sects of Christianity because that’s mostly what there is. In later generations after the nation is less monolithic there will probably be more of a dynamic equilibrium between conversions to and from different religions, but it will be an equilibrium not dominated by one in particular.
Either that, or the advance of science will render all religions quaintly silly and bring the atheist utopia. But I’m not holding my breath.
In any case, insisting that one kind of Americans is the only real kind of Americans is going to be even worse political suicide in the future than it is in the present.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:44 am
DTM,
As the percentage of the GDP consumed by the government increases and the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations increases, the ability for any group to survive outside of the one, dominate political party will decrease. See Chicago as an example of a place where one party politics has survived for decades. There is no reason that the U.S. canot function as Chicago or Mass.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Hector may have something–the right wing disdain, if not active hostility, for education, science, diversity and accomplishment–all such being “elite”, if not an active threat to the tenets of their religion, bodes extremely ill for their, and other’s, children.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
“It in large part because you people have created a culture that denigrates motherhood, procreation”
(1) You people? Wasn’t it JC himself, followed by Paul, who told us all how icky sex was? Weren’t they all about how you shouldn’t have sex or kids because god was coming soon (how’s that prediction going by the way?)
(2) Hector, what exactly do you imagine god’s end-game to be regarding overpopulation? In your theology, is it god’s will that everyone have eight kids, the earth’s population hit 30 billion, and then the human race go extinct in the subsequent famines and wars over remaining resources?
In your imagination, would god rather have a return to the nasty brutish and short past, where mean human lifespan is 25 years and starvation and disease are constant companions, rather than a thinly populated world on which we all live like kings? How exactly does this square with either a merciful god, or a god who wants us to be better than animals?
November 6th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
since Catholicism can’t be propagated by faith and reason
Q: What do the following people have in common?
Cardinal Francis Arinze
J.S. Bach
Tony Blair
G.K. Chesterton
Dorothy Day
Graham Greene the writer
Alec Guinness
Ernest Hemingway
Gerard Manley Hopkins
Clare Booth Luce
Gustav Mahler
Marshall McLuhan
Thomas Merton
John von Neumann (mathematician)
Peter Paul Rubens
Elizabeth Ann Seton
Edith Stein
J.R.R. Tolkien
Lars von Trier
Tennessee Williams
November 6th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Q: What do the following people have in common?
They’re all old or dead?
They’re all white?
Only one of them (von Neumann) is in any sort of way an exemplar of “reason” as opposed to emotion?
November 6th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Maynard Handley,
Francis Arinze is a black Nigerian, genius. As for the point at issue, my organic chemistry professor in college (at an Ivy League) was world-renowned, had had a synthesis named after him, and was also a convert to Catholicism. I’m a convert (to Anglicanism) as well.
As for overpopulation, of course I believe in it. I work in an environmental field, and I have given talks about family planing before. I have no problem with hormonal birth control, and I think it’s a very good thing (I’m more dubious about condoms). My position on marriage and children is that of the Orthodox communion, and some conservative Anglican bishops. I think that it’s not necessary for every sex act to be open to procreation, but that the relationship as a whole should be open to children. I think married couples should (barring exceptional reasons) try to have at least one child, though hopefully not too many, and nonmarried relationships should be open to future prospects of marriage and children.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:54 am
I’m having difficulty reconciling commenters’ shitting on Christians with Obama’s call for us to promote bonds of connection rather than contempt for each other. The latter is how this left-leaning Christian tries to approach life, even when nonbelievers leap to mock my sense of faith.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:51 am
They’re all converts to Catholicism, bud.
November 7th, 2008 at 7:47 am
hope that you keep reporting and following up on this issue. I signed the petition because I can’t think of anything that is more important to the long-term health of our country, our environment, and our economy than a smart transportation policy, and especially
November 7th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
“They’re all converts to Catholicism, bud.”
No…. How could it be so obvious…
I guess the concept of sarcasm is new to you, Adam.
November 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“My position on marriage and children is that of the Orthodox communion, and some conservative Anglican bishops. ”
So let me get this straight. You fully accept that your views on procreation are EXTREMELY contested within the church, but that doesn’t stop you from being absolutely convinced that you are correct and everyone else is wrong — at the very least we non-procreators (and, I imagine, GLBTs) are destroying culture, at the worst we’re all damned.
“i beseech you in the bowels of christ think it possible you may be mistaken.”
But of course, it is the nature of the religious fanatic, is it not, never to even consider this possibility. Sure, you might apologize about Galileo 400 years later; maybe you’ll get round to Darwin in 200 years; sure you fought democracy in Europe tooth and nail (Catholics were finally allowed by the Pope to vote in what, 190x?); but you might want to consider being on the side of decency a little earlier this time.
The church was a foundation of the apartheid system of the South Africa I grew up in, but god forbid that you look in your heart and see the similarities between your attitudes to GLTB and the DRC’s attitude to non-whites.
November 7th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I guess the concept of sarcasm is new to you, Adam.
I was pretty sure you knew, but I wanted to make sure nobody was just left dangling.
Anyway, way to wave off some of our best writers and intellectuals with a dismissive comment about how only von Neumann “counts” as being a man of reason. FWIW, I have a degree in a scientific field from Caltech myself, though I’ve changed careers.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:26 am
penis buyutucu,penis buyutu hap,penis buyutuculeri,Sex Shop|Seksshop|Sex,Erotik Shop|Seks Shop|Sexshop|cinsel ürünler|Penis
November 14th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Penis Enlargement Pills, How to Suck Cock, Sex Secrets, Woman Masturbation, Penis Techniques, Sexual Performance, Sex Instructons & Positions. Visit: http://www.sinepenis.com
March 1st, 2009 at 10:54 am
viagra
Incredible site!
March 1st, 2009 at 11:06 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 11th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 13th, 2009 at 5:50 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
April 8th, 2009 at 4:43 am
Incredible site!
viagra