In a “Week in Review” piece they seem to make a series of presumptions leading to a series of bizarre conclusions: One is “Religious right fracturing over Rudy?” Hat tip goes to Hot Air. Well maybe since they are in New York, Rudy’s home state, and most people on the subway would support him they have not bothered to do any due diligence. Hat tip to Des Moines Register Rudy has not yet won any political seat outside of New York. In fact Mitt Romney has leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and could take South Carolina. Rudy has less than a double digit lead in Florida. Polling data here So while reading about how Rudy has shaken the faith, I am having flashbacks to their reports in 2004 on how Bush stole the election away from Howard Dean.
The second most uninformed presumptions is about people of faith. It presumes a group of 11% is or will be shaken by a nomination of Rudy: This is amusing silly when you actually considered that people of faith are not weaker than people without it.
Who exactly are people of faith? They are people who believe in a power greater than themselves who has created all of what exists for a purpose. As apposed to people who believe life is just a random event without purpose. And, morality comes from a source greater than that of people. As apposed to morality being reasonable to make people happy and that it originates from a source no greater than man.
How exactly would believing that there is a reason to existence beyond an individuals understanding or believing in morality is not something that is subject to human justification; cause one to be shaken if somebody they don’t want becomes a nominee?
Religious people don’t live in a bubble they see things they don’t like everyday. They walk the same streets as those without faith, and witness the same things. They have seen friends and family be hurt and have had pain and suffering in their lives no different than people of no faith. They are not shaken that just because they try to do what is right and they get no break from the life for their effort.
It is interesting how they come up with this 11% number itself because they state:
37%, 30%, 33% … exit polls identified the religious right
But they state only 26% of the population could be considered the religious right as they look at how many people are evangelical (in their view)
| … Religious right are only 11% … |
and well over 1/2 of those are the religious left. So they conclude the religious right are only 11% of the population … leading one to infer that the other 20% who were polled were dishonest.Then LAURIE GOODSTEIN, presumes it is logical that Christian leaders expand their agenda to subjects like Global Warming. OK the writer has no clue about who Christians are or what they believe and should not be writing about something she has little understanding of! The bible says nothing about gradual Global Warming, If the day comes that she can see people floating in the air and the earth on fire will she be wondering why they are giving thanks.
OK here the hints NYtimes needs:
1> The Religious Right does not exist as a formal identity. It does not have a list of members nor does it collect dues.
2> The Religious Right title is given or claimed by any person who desires it, without regard to race or party.
3> The Religious Right not being an organization has no formal leaders or speakers. It is centered around a general belief of religious ideas and associations with people of similar beliefs. People may be able to have ideas which place them in the center of the group but if they change their ideas they change not the group. So if Richard Cizik wants to vote for Hillary, that is nice but don’t expect a 33% or even 11% jump in her polls, expect nothing more than her total votes going up by 1.
Popularity: 15% [?]
