https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

What $100 Million Ad Campaign Would Jesus Do?

An effort to attract back unchurched young adults has a good message, but the wrong target

A $100 million ad campaign is being launched to attract young adults back to Christianity.

This week, an alliance of Christian media ministries announced the launch of an extensive $100-million-dollar national ad campaign to share inspirational messages about Jesus Christ with “skeptics and seekers.”

The “He Gets Us” campaign features stark ads with messages such as “Jesus was homeless,” “Jesus suffered anxiety,” and “Jesus was in broken relationships.” They direct people to a website where they’re then connected to national ministries and local congregations.

As an example …

So let’s put to the side whether spending $100 million to actually help homeless people, anxious people, or people in broken relationships would be more in keeping with Jesus’ actual message.

The problem, I think, is that the target of the campaign is totally misaligned. The research that went into it actually makes the case.

Starting in April 2021, a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. adults answered an online survey designed by Haven, followed by additional quantitative polling and interview-style qualitative research. […]

Skeptics of Christianity represent one-fourth of the U.S. population, according to the research. Half of them, “especially those with children,” are open to learning about Jesus, if obstacles can be overcome, Haven states. The biggest obstacle: Jesus’ message has been distorted as “hate-filled.”

Based on these insights, Haven’s goals became to “communicate that Jesus is for everyone and is a worthy example to live by”—and that his teachings are “positive for society as a whole.”

I mean, that’s cool — but maybe a more productive goal would be figuring out how “Jesus’ message has been distorted as ‘hate-filled.'”

I suspect the problem for “young adults” is not with Jesus’ message or perceived relevancy. It’s that they see Jesus’ ostensible reps here on earth spending their money on jets (and ad campaigns) and preaching to mega-churches (and the press) about how those young adults’ gay friends are going to hell, and how wealthy companies should get tax breaks because capitalism is God’s way, and if you just donate enough money then God will reward you with a bunch of money, too. Oh, and that Jesus’s representatives should take over the country on behalf of all the white people.

One Nation Under God
This is the message the Religious Right sends about Jesus.

I believe the evangelical Religions Right — the brand of Christianity that has spent the last fifty years elbowing itself in front of the microphone as the One, True Representatives of Christianity in the US — has done more with its venality and cruelty to drive people away from Christianity in this nation than any “sex, drugs, and rock and roll.”

More impactfully, by the Religious Right locking themselves in with the Republican Party in the pursuit of the power to force their agenda on the rest of the nation, they have become associated inextricably with folk like Trump, Cruz, McConnell, DeSantis, Gaetz, MTG, Boebert, Hawley, etc.

Trump and Bible
This is the face of US Christianity to too many people.

These “young adults” now see those deplorables as the representatives of Christ (because they claim to be  and/or there are plenty of religious types willing to assert they are), and it’s profoundly unappealing to them.

After all, who’s going to be believed as to what Jesus’ message is?  A slick ad campaign, or the religiously-anointed political representatives of the church trying to kick people off welfare, force LGBTQ folk back into the closet, require rape victims to give birth, suppress the vote of people of color, lock down the borders to desperate refugees, kick homeless out of town, and legalize discrimination under the banner of “religious freedom” … all with the blessing of various groups and ministers saying that this is all being done in Jesus’ name.

There are a lot of Christians and churches that aren’t into all that, to be sure, that focus on charity and compassion and humility — but they’re not the ones parading around, wrapping themselves in flags and waving around crosses. They’re not the ones crowing about how Christianity is all about  nationalism, capitalism, partisanship, guns, and power.

Trump being prayed over
This may garner some votes, but it probably doesn’t encourage “young adults” to go to church.

Maybe Jesus’ ad campaign shouldn’t be focused on trying to draw unchurched young adults to faith. Maybe it should be focused on changing the hearts of those who are driving those young adults away from Christianity. Because right now they’re drowning out Jesus’ words, whether or not He Gets Us.

Fleeing to a better life

Consider the irony. A country famously founded by a search for a better life — freedom of conscious, economic opportunity, etc. — has no clue why people flee here.

Anti-immigration folk have focused on bogus results — "they're stealing our jobs [that none of us want to work in]" and "they're horrible criminals [even though immigrant populations tend to commit less crime than native-born ones]" — while making up a weird fantasy about why these folk are coming to the US — "they want to live on lavish welfare checks and collect Obamaphones [even though neither of those are a thing]."

Yes, there are criminals who come over the border illegally. But the vast majority — as demonstrated by the brutal hardship of the journey to get to the US southern border, or to cross it — are desperate, fleeing horrifying poverty and terrific domestic violence. That's why folk are coming with their families — because they don't want to leave their spouses and children behind in such an awful place.

One can debate whether people fleeing such horrible circumstances should be allowed in, but to simply deny that, and to instead lambaste them as frauds, murderers and rapists, and lazy bums, displays a profound cruelty, as well as an inability to try to address the root causes of such illegal immigration (beyond the dependence of a significant amount of the American economy on such workers).




Why Central American Refugees Will Keep Coming to the U.S.
“There is no way we can turn back”

Original Post

Ideals, pragmatism, and the evolving GOP vote

This article discusses how (many, not all) evangelical types in Nevada are rallying around a notorious brothel owner who has won the GOP nomination for a seat in the state legislature.

“This really is the Trump movement,” Hof, 71, told Reuters in an interview at Moonlite BunnyRanch, his brothel near Carson City in northern Nevada that was featured on the HBO reality television series “Cathouse.” “People will set aside for a moment their moral beliefs, their religious beliefs, to get somebody that is honest in office,” he said. “Trump is the trailblazer, he is the Christopher Columbus of honest politics.”

The immediate reaction is to point fingers and talk about hypocrisy. This guy, like Trump, embodies all sorts of non-Christian ideals, but conservative Christians are turning out to support him. What a bunch of maroons! But I think there's more to it than that, and not necessarily a bad more-to-it.

“People want to know how an evangelical can support a self-proclaimed pimp,” Fuentes said in an interview at his home in Pahrump, an unincorporated town of 36,000 people that is the largest community in the sprawling, rural district where Hof is favored to win in November’s general election.

He said the reason was simple. “We have politicians, they might speak good words, not sleep with prostitutes, be a good neighbor. But by their decisions, they have evil in their heart. Dennis Hof is not like that.” The pastor said he felt Hof would protect religious rights, among other things.

In Hof’s Republican-leaning district, seven evangelicals said they voted for him because they believed that he, who like Trump is a wealthy businessman and political outsider, would also clean up politics and not be beholden to special-interest groups and their money.

Politics is about compromise. It's trying to balance the needs of multiple constituents, multiple interests. It's about being willing to take a candidate who is imperfect, but the better (or less worse) choice.

In a sense, this shift is a sign of maturity by evangelicals, an acknowledgment that no candidate is perfect, that no person is perfect, and that even a sinner can do good, can serve the public, can advance a healthy change.

Of course, I also think this particular application of this tolerance is delusional. Coupling "Trump" with "honest politics" is crazy. Assuming that wealth makes one a "political outsider" and therefore will lead to a clean-up of corruption is also myopic, to say the least. Hof sounds like a dubious candidate for change, except for change that lines his own pocket, and Trump seems to have demonstrated that his devotion to evangelical causes is solely occasional throwing of bones, whereas his central agenda strikes me as actually opposed to Christ's preaching.

But while the application is wildly misguided (and a bit desperate), the principle behind it is not altogether out of whack. Refusing to vote for your interests because a candidate imperfectly represents your ideals sounds kind of good on paper, but generally speaking means you won't be represented at all. Figuring out what level of imperfection and compromise is tolerable is a pain in the ass and an uncomfortable thing to do, but it's also a sign of growing up.




In age of Trump, evangelicals back self-styled top U.S. pimp
He styles himself as America’s best-known pimp, a strip-club owner who runs multiple brothels and looks set to win a seat as a Republican in the Nevada legislature with the blessing of many conservative Christian voters.

Original Post

The tragedy of the persecution of American Christians

The tragedy is that it doesn’t exist, but some Christians in the US are convinced it does.

Speaking as both an American and a Christian, here’s what I see.

Christians do still hold tremendous power in this country. They hold positions of influence. They have tremendous privilege. The national holidays, the public symbols, the social structure is all built around Christian traditions and Christian values and Christians beliefs.

But …

Some of that is changing. Christians are being told there are other people who want to sit at the table. Not just the Jews (who were, sometimes, tolerated), but Muslims. Hindus. Buddhists. And, heck, people who don’t believe at all.

And Christians aren’t automatically deferred to, or respected, or treated as not just the norm but the core of what it means to be American. People make jokes about Christians. People want other holidays off. People question whether churches should be tax exempt. People question Christian teachings on things like divorce, or abortion, or sex, or the role of women, or homosexuality, or the origin of the universe, or the existence of God.

Sure, there are a lot of Christians who have little to no problem with those things But the Christians who are most certain that they are the True Christians, the Real Christians, the Ones Christ Would Feel Were Truly His Followers …

They’re not always the undisputed top dogs. They’re not the center of respect. They can’t simply assert their opinion (God’s opinion!) as to what is Right and what is Wrong and expect it to be followed.

And that fall from complete, utter, and total social hegemony is perceived as … persecution.

“I don’t get to shun and fire and refuse to serve immoral people any more.”

“I don’t get to put monuments to my religion in the public square any more.”

“I don’t get to have my prayers read in classrooms any more.”

“I don’t get to forbid stuff, and shame or imprison the folk who do forbidden things, any more.”

“I don’t automatically garner respect and deference for being the epitome of morality and righteousness any more.”

“I don’t get to assume everyone is a Christian, and that they are Baptized, and that they have Read the Bible, and that they Celebrate the Same Holidays as me, and that they Believe The Same Stuff I do any more.”

“I’m being persecuted.”

The word “privilege” gets tossed around a lot, and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but that’s exactly what this is: *Christian Privilege. And it’s being challenged. And some Christians simply cannot stand that.

Some Christians see any threat to their being Number One as being persecution. Some Christians see any challenge to their being the undisputed bosses of America as being persecution. Some Christians see criticism, jokes, disrespect, as being persecution.

Again, speaking as both an American and a Christian: suck it up, Buttercup.

Jesus didn’t promise any of his followers that they would be in charge of things here on Earth. He didn’t say that they would get a country that would follow all their religious dictates. He didn’t say that everyone would respect Christians, or treat them as the top dogs in society.

In fact, he pretty much said the opposite. And he said that was okay, at least according to the Bible.

Now, I’m not recommending that Christians should want to be persecuted. Or that any religious (or irreligious) group should be persecuted.

Heck, I’m not even saying that I don’t get peeved when people post stuff that says that Christians / Theists of Any Sort are deluded idiots who are responsible for all the ills of this world.

But that’s not persecution. That is, at best, a debate between worldviews, and, at worst, people being asshats. Being a Christian doesn’t threaten my job, doesn’t threaten my owning my home, threaten my kid being able to go to school, threaten my ability to go to church, doesn’t threaten my ability to vote or buy stuff or participate in society or eat in restaurants or stay out of jail. There are countries where that’s the case; this isn’t one of them.

Christians aren’t being persecuted in this country. They’re simply not the undisputed lords and masters. And, frankly, that bit of humility and need to actually sell the message of Christianity, vs. imposing it by rule of law and social diktat, is actually a good thing for Christians. Because, again, looking at the Bible, being the people in undisputed charge of things is not what Jesus recommended to his followers.




No, Christians do not face looming persecution in America – The Washington Post
The media should challenge conservative Christians on their politics of paranoia.

View on Google+

Trumpists just want government to work for them … against everyone else

The “politics of resentment” are not about small government per se, as the GOP has ostensibly been fighting for. Rather, it’s a tribalistic demand that government work for the people — but not for all of the people.

The core of the ethnonationalist perspective is that a country’s constituent groups and demographics are locked in a zero-sum struggle for resources. Any government intervention that favors one group disfavors the others. Government and other institutions are either with you or against you.

What FOX and talk radio have been teaching the right for decades is that native-born, working- and middle-class whites are locked in a zero-sum struggle with rising Others — minorities, immigrants, gays, coastal elitists, hippie environmentalists, etc. — and that the major institutions of the country have been coopted and are working on behalf of the Others.

[…] From an ethnonationalist perspective, government overreach is when government tells people like me what to do. The proper role of government is to defend my rights and privileges against people like them.

If government is protecting Them, then it must, perforce, be oppressing Us. Some of this comes from the fact that, yes, as institutionalized discrimination against those other groups has been combated, it has meant that the folk who used to assume the lion’s share of the societal pie and representation of what it meant to be “American” are having to share more evenly. But it’s become particularly acute in the face of prolonged economic downturns and stagnation that have nothing to do with any of this, but which provides the very real (if misplaced) feeling of being oppressed and disadvantaged.

Add in fear-mongering and rabble-rousing by conservative media and pundits (e.g., the truly chilling 2009 Limbaugh quote in the story), and you’ve got a sizable fraction of the population suddenly ready to take up torches and pitchforks to overturn societal institutions — but just for their own benefit.

It is, indirectly, the seeming victory of the Ayn Rand philosophy: I’m going to grab mine, you go pound sand.




This one quote shows what angry white guys mean when they talk about government overreach
Don’t want toxic smoke blown in your face? Move to Sweden.

View on Google+

Should the Left be happy about the GOP civil war? Or terrified?

Steve Bannon is making an active move on the establishment GOP in Washington — who are finally actively counter-moving against him. This is a weirdly volatile dynamic.

1. More moderate and establishment GOP (themselves no great band of heroes) wanting to defeat the neo-fascist wing of the party should be encouraged by all sides. The election of Trump in 2016 demonstrates that playing the odds that a Bizarro World extremist could never, ever, possibly be elected is a mook’s game. Gambling that a Bannon lackey couldn’t possibly win the general election even if they won the GOP primary seems similarly over-optimistic.

2. The establishment GOP is already weakened — it’s difficult to tell the extent to which their power has been electorally hollowed out, and the extent to which they still have some measure of influence on the electorate and the results of the 2018 elections.

3. The “concern” that the establishment GOP has over the anti-establishment populist rebellion against them is very much to to be laughed at (if the stakes were not so frighteningly high). This is an anti-establishment, anti-government, anti-Washington movement that the GOP has both passively and actively supported in the Reaganite 80s, the Gingrich 90s, the Dubya 00s, and the TEAbagging 10s. Disdain for the federal government (and, by extension, its swampy politicians), distrust of the media (even the Fox contingent), despising of compromise, arrogance toward numbers and data and science — these are all things that the GOP has fostered for thirty years. And only now are concerned that the Revolution, like Saturn, will consume its own children.

4. The attempt to tar Bannon as a racist and part of the neo-fascist wing of the alt-Right is ballsy, but unlikely to be effective within the party itself. Too many of the GOP’s base have been trained by the GOP itself to consider all blacks as welfare queens and thugs, Jews as liberal coastal elites and moneyed interests, and all the other targets of the Nazi types infesting the walls of the Republican party as traitors against True America. The GOP establishment’s assumption that they can pivot their base against such sentiment is chutzpah of the highest caliber.

5. Donald Trump is deeply unpopular. You know who’s even more unpopular, at least among the GOP faithful? Mitch McConnell. And Paul Ryan isn’t much better. Trying to defeat Steve Bannon isn’t easy, and neither McConnell nor Ryan have the popular support to stop the Monster from the Id they, themselves, have unleashed. Attempts to do so, especially ones using the arguments the Dems have already put forward, are going to be very difficult to pull off.

6. And, for that matter, Trump doesn’t have the popularity to do so, either. The raw meat base love Trump for his rhetoric, and are willing to send to the political guillotine anyone who opposed him — but are apparently well aware that, rhetorically, he’s unreliable and petty. They love that he’s in the White House, but they’re more than happy (see Luther Strange) to ignore him as they see fit. He’s the John Gill of leaders, an ideological figurehead that they’re happy to scream for at rallies, but are also willing to ignore in favor of more malign figureheads like Bannon when ideological consistency becomes important.

7. The one hope here is that a Bannon candidate, wounded but not stopped by the establishment GOP, will be a targetable victim for the Dems (assuming that it’s in a district or race that the Dems are actually bothering to challenge). The concern here is whether the the establishment GOP will consider a win by the Dems as better for the country than a win by the Bannonites.

They should — the Dems are not likely to destroy the country, and will not be competing in the future against the same population as the Bannon wing. Establishment Republicans playing the long game will enlist or at least support Democratic opposition to Bannon’s rebels; hack Republicans will pay more attention to party labels and threats of retaliation that they think they can avoid by appeasement.

8. The wild card here is which way Trump will jump. Will he rally to the defense of Bannon, his once-trusted advisor, or will he consider him a threat to his own power? Will he draw closer to the swampy GOP establishment? Or will he simply consider himself more important and durable than either faction, and seek to rise above it all?

It would all be fascinating to watch unfold, were the very future of our nation not hanging in the balance.




washingtonpost

View on Google+

A look at a truly patriotic act of allegiance

Immigrants being nationalized swear an oath of allegiance, not to the flag, not to the military, not to the national leader, not to a cultural group or historical victory or nationalist value set or symbol or even to a vague “United States.” They swear an oath to the US Constitution.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

That seems an expression of patriotism we don’t see much of among the native-born population.




Pledging Allegiance to the U.S. Constitution – The Atlantic
How patriotism among American immigrants is uniquely linked to the country’s founding document

View on Google+

Men’s jobs, women’s jobs, and jobs that have shifted from one to the other

Some neat statistical analysis and visualization here about jobs that, from 1950 to 2015, remain predominantly one gender, are evenly split, or have substantially changed.

There are few (good) reasons for such divisions; most seem to be cultural. Still, it’s a remarkably different world than at the beginning of the period, where most such differences were seen not just “how things are,” but actively dictated by God and/or Nature. There seems to be less of that sort of attitude today (at least in the circles I circle in), if still a certain, “Well, this is something we [gender] do, so why are you wanting to do it?” social snubbery.

It will be interesting to see how this continues to evolve.




Most Female and Male Occupations, Since 1950
The shifting majorities of the sexes in the workplace.

View on Google+

Colorado is less denominational, more “unaffiliated”

An interesting breakdown of Colorado data pulled from the recent Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) survey of religiosity in the United States. Some 33% of folk in the state and in Denver report no religious affiliation, Denver being the 4th highest rate there after Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco (the national average is 24%).

On a national basis, 58% of unaffiliated identify as “secular” (not religious) and 27% identify as atheist or agnostic; and 16% define themselves as “religious” but not affiliated with any given church.

39 percent of respondents in Colorado identified as white and Christian, down from to 50 percent in a decade ago. Nationally the number has also dropped to 43%, with 30% identifying as white and Protestant; in 1976 the numbers were 81% and 55%.

On the one hand, these are massive changes, and part and parcel of both declining attendance at traditional churches and the increasingly shrill tones from frightened evangelicals seeing these same sorts of shifts affecting even their own congregations (white evangelical Protestants dropped from 23% of the population in 2006 to only 17% this year).

Some of this is due to demographic changes: immigration, population growth among non-white and mixed race populations, and an increasing willingness to identify as something other than white.

But part is due to basic changes in American religion and spirituality, and it become less (I believe) of a social requirement to be part of a given church in order to meet and mingle and fit in.

There are good and bad aspects to any change. There are plenty of folk (self included) who won’t be sad to see more radical Christianist thought losing support in the American population. But losing some of those social common bonds in idiom and morality lessons carries costs unless we are thoughtful about what we replace them with. People carefully considering their beliefs and choosing a non-religious course and ethos is one thing. People who simply fall away from church-going and organized religion because it’s not a thing anyone does any more is quite another thing.

While the stereotype (and not unfounded one) of preachers swaying masses to drive them toward some goal or another has problematic aspects, if those social / moral bonds of organized religion fade away, what will take their place? What already is taking their place?




Report: In religion as in politics, more Coloradans are unaffiliated – Denverite
Maybe we’re not religious, but spiritual. This is our Number of the Week: 33 percent. That’s the portion of Colorado and Denver residents who reported no religious affiliation in a new study from the Public Religion Research Institute. This makes Colorado one of 20 states in which no single religious group made up a larger share … Continue reading “Report: In religion as in politics, more Coloradans are unaffiliated”

View on Google+

The evolving demographics of world religion

Making predictions based solely on population changes is a dangerous game, since other factors can intervene, but it's one of the few games we have. Based on birth rates in various communities and shifting world demographics …

… By 2050, Muslims are expected to be close to the same proportion of the world population — around 30% — as Christians will be. Both religions will be growing in numbers, largely in sub-Saharan Africa.

… In the US, Muslims will supplant Jews as the largest non-Christian sect, growing to about 10%, with Christianity dropping from about 3/4 to 2/3 of the population, and "Unaffiliateds" growing as a percentage.

… "Unaffiliateds" as a world population, will decrease in proportion, due to higher birth rates among most religious groups.

Whether this is good news, bad news, or just news to bear in mind is left as an exercise for the reader.




The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050
As of 2010, nearly a third of the world’s population identified as Christian. But if demographic trends persist, Islam will close the gap by the middle of the 21st century.

View on Google+

The Future Face of America

This is a year-plus old, but worth a look. It's photos from a National Geographic article looking at "the face of America" in 2050. Based on demographic trends in marriage, a large number of those faces are of mixed race / ethnicity.

I suspect there are a lot of people not terribly thrilled about that. But, honestly, I think it's a good thing. Looking around the globe, nations with a high degree of ethnic / racial separation don't do well in the long term. E pluribus unum is a pretty good motto to have.




National Geographic Predicted What Americans Will Look Like In 2050

View on Google+

Where do immigrants to the US come from?

This is kind of fascinating, watching it state by state over time, seeing the waves from China and Ireland, Italy, and Germany (and, of course, Mexico).

It's also a bit amusing — who would have thought that there were so many immigrants from the Philippines to Alaska in recent years? Norway and Canada, sure, but the Philippines?

Some of that is small numbers. I would imagine foreign immigration to Alaska is fairly small; a few families (and the friends they beckoned) could tip those numbers pretty quickly.

The Russians / former USSR folk in Colorado in the mid-20th Century is another one I wouldn't have expected.

Anyway, fun stuff.

Originally shared by +Pew Research Center:

From Germany to Mexico: How America’s source of immigrants has changed over a century http://pewrsr.ch/1Lgegfm

 

View on Google+

The Decline of the Labor Force Participation Rate

This article breaks down the statistics in the change in the labor force participation rate (who's actually working or seeking work). Short summary: the most significant parts of the change are an aging population and young folk spending more time in school before going onto (or back into) the job market. The latter, at least, doesn't seem necessarily like a bad thing.

The economy isn't doing great, but there have been some systemic changes since before the Great Recession, and if the mantra that we simply need to "cut taxes so that job creators can create jobs" and trickle-down economics weren't convincing then, they're even less so now.




If nearly 40% of Americans aren’t working, what are they doing?
Going, going, gone.

View on Google+

The unification (and division) of the GOP

Within the purposes of trying to chart all ideological differences along a single axis, a few observations about this look at House Republicans over the last century:

1. The most conservative GOP representatives in the House a century ago would be among the most liberal in today's Congress. The same is true even during the Gingrich Speakership in the late 90s. The GOP of the Eisenhower and Nixon Eras would never be even be on the map.

2. Though the House GOP, overall, is more conservative than ever, its spread of conservatism is wider than ever. The result is that they are hugely united when opposing the Democrats (with very few crossover votes), but very divided when it comes to making policy decisions for themselves. That seems to have been the conflict that eventually drove Boehner to resign.




Republicans Were More United Than Ever Under John Boehner
John Boehner’s tenure as speaker of the House, which will end with his resignation next month, is striking because of a seeming contradiction. By statistical measures, it featured an extraordinary …

View on Google+

Population (Un)density

The breadth of the blue isn't surprising — the Amazon basin, the northern areas of Amerca, Siberia, Greenland, Australia, the Sahara, most of it expanded by a Mercator projection — but the tightness of the red (um … Bangladesh, mostly, it looks like) is a bit more of a shock.

Originally shared by +Doyce Testerman:

The red and blue contain the same number of people.




This Map’s Red and Blue Regions Each Contain 5% of the World Population
The remaining 90%, of course, inhabit the regions colored white. (That’s how math works!)

View on Google+

Okay, if only we can get most of them to move there

People are moving to Texas because of its anti-gay stance? Sounds fine to me. Please, let's concentrate them in one place, minimize their national political power, and then sadly nod our heads when they decide to secede again.

Sounds like a feature, not a bug.




Texas Activist: People Moving To Texas Because It Banned Gay Marriage
Yesterday on “Washington Watch,” Jonathan Saenz of the Religious Right group Texas Values criticized state lawmakers for failing to vote on a proposal that would have invalidated several L

View on Google+

America's religious face is changing, like it or not

Pew Research Center's most recent major survey of religion in America has some remarkable results. In just the last several years, Christianity as a whole in the US has declined as a percent of the population. Most of that loss has been among Catholic and mainline Protestant churches, who now combined are a bit over a third of the citizenry, but even evangelical Protestant affiliation is down a bit (as a percent), to just over a quarter of the population.

Christians, as a whole, have dropped from over three-quarters of the the population to a bit over two-thirds.

The next biggest group after that is "unaffiliated" — folks who are believers but not church-affiliated, or are just "spiritual," or are atheist / agnostic / humanist / secular. They're just under a quarter of the population.

This has a variety of impacts, but the most visible (to my mind) is reflected in the growing dread and sense of martyr-like persecution amongst the vocal evangelical population (which is not quite the same as saying "conservative Christian," but there's a lot of overlap). All the fighting over marriage equality, and the "religious freedom" to discriminate, is a reflection of a perceived (consciously or not) loss of power and influence, explicit and implicit, over American culture and politics.

I'll be reading through the report more carefully, but those are some first impressions.




America’s Changing Religious Landscape
The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the share of Americans who do not identify with any organized religion is growing. These changes affect all regions in the country and many demographic groups.

View on Google+

Millennial twenty-somethings aren't having as many babies

And that's really a good thing, I think, esp. since it's most apparent among poorer populations and among unmarried. Plus, you know, population issues.

It does raise the issues of economic growth and the Ponzi scheme nature of our current social security system — but those are things that need to be dealt with any way. If the only way we can survive and prosper is by significantly expanding the population each generation, that doesn't seem to be a viable, long-term solution.

Originally shared by +The Atlantic:

The Childless Millennial http://trib.al/QcKzoHg




Millennials Are Having Fewer Kids Than Any Previous Generation
The recession, marriage rates, and other factors have all put a pause on procreation for today’s twentysomethings.

View on Google+

The changing demographics of the United States

Of course they (we) are still a plurality in the vast majority of those states, but the interactions between race, religion, and other demographic groups continues to grow more complex and less something you can just assume. Which I think should be a good thing.




White Christians Are No Longer The Majority In 19 States
White Christians, long understood to be the primary shapers of American politics and culture, are rapidly losing their majority status across the country — even in traditionally conservative states.

View on Google+

Gee, thanks, Millennials

According to NBC exit polling yesterday, 37% of the voters casting ballots were age 60 or older; 12% were age 30 or younger.

Guess which groups skew more Republican or Democratic?

There are a variety of reasons why the election yesterday went as it did ("Forget it, Jake — it's Mid-Terms"), but this difference was certainly part of the equation.

A reasonable set of questions would be why each of those groups felt motivated (or demotivated) to vote (leaving aside states that have made it more difficult for college students, part of that Millennial group, to vote). Granted, that Under-30 vote was no worse than the Mid-Term numbers in '06 or '10, but the 60+ cohort has been making up more of the overall voting population. One wonders why.




If millennials had voted, last night would have looked very different.
Young voters say they want to elect Democrats—but that doesn’t matter when they don’t show up at the polls.

View on Google+