Ross Douthat has an interesting item on American religiosity in the Atlantic.
In the United States, the Bush era has summoned up — arguably for the first time in this countryâs history — a mass secularism that looks to Europe and sees a model for America to follow. [â¦]
Americaâs secular turn actually began in the 1990s, though it wasnât until 2002 that two Berkeley sociologists first noticed it. In a paper in the American Sociological Review, Michael Hout and Claude S. Fischer announced the startling fact that the percentage of Americans who said they had âno religious preferenceâ had doubled in less than 10 years, rising from 7 percent to 14 percent of the population.
This unexpected spike wasnât the result of growing atheism, Hout and Fischer argued; rather, more Americans were distancing themselves from organized religion as âa symbolic statementâ against the religious right. If the association of religiosity with political conservatism continued to gain strength, the sociologists suggested, âthen liberalsâ alienation from organized religion [might] become, as it has in many other nations, institutionalized.â (emphasis added)
I havenât reviewed the Hout/Fischer report in any real detail, but a large jump in the rates of those who claim no religious preference is rather unusual, particularly in light of claims, such as those from the president, that weâre in the midst of a âThird Awakeningâ of religious devotion in the United States.
I suspect there are a variety of explanations for the incremental increase. Perhaps itâs geo-political — with Americaâs enemies overseas being religious extremists, maybe more people are becoming secular. Perhaps the increased openness on the part of non-believers (i.e., best-selling books from Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens) makes people more comfortable in acknowledging spiritual doubts.
But if the Hout/Fischer analysis is right, and more people are turning away from organized religion because theyâre just so repulsed by the Dobson/Robertson crowd, well, thatâs just hilarious.
Bill OâReilly was the featured speaker at the National Society of Newspaper Columnists (NSNC) conference on Friday, where he, I kid you not, complained about opinionated news dissemination.
OâReilly contended that many newspapers are losing circulation because theyâve allowed the âliberalâ ideology of their editorial pages to âbleed into news coverageâ — despite, he said, there being a greater number of âtraditional conservativesâ than liberals in the American population.
Yes, if thereâs one thing OâReilly and his network understand, itâs the importance of keeping a clear distinction between news reporting and opinion journalism.
Rudy Giuliani’s claim that he blew off his commitment to the Iraq Study Group to avoid politicizing the panel’s work doesn’t stand up well to scrutiny, but in case there was any doubt, even Tim Russert is helping debunk the bogus rationalization.
On Meet The Press this morning, host Tim Russert offered more evidence that politics was not an issue in Giuliani’s decision to leave the ISG. “Several commission members have said to me that presidential politics never entered the discussion,” said Russert. “It was all about Giuliani’s schedule and commitments versus showing up for the Iraq Study Group.” […]
As PBS’s Gwen Ifil pointed out, the important work of the Iraq Study Group should have come before any political considerations. “Even if it were his presidential ambitions,” said Ifill. “Is that really a good answer that you were so political that you rather focus on politics than focus on the nation’s security?”
Just another reason to believe this flap will stick to Giuliani like tar.
As pathological as Dick Cheney comes across in today’s much-discussed Washington Post profile, our notorious Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, hardly comes across looking good. (Barton Gellman and Jo Becker confirm that the president calls his long-time friend “Fredo.”)
For example, we’ve long believed that Gonzales was responsible for the infamous memo that dismissed the Geneva Conventions as “quaint,” and characterized Colin Powell as a defender of “obsolete” rules. Today’s piece explains that Gonzales didn’t even write his own memo; Cheney general counsel David Addington did.
This graf seems to capture the internal White House dynamic.
Gonzales, a former Texas judge, had the seniority and the relationship with Bush. But Addington — a man of imposing demeanor, intellect and experience — dominated the group. Gonzales “was not a law-of-war expert and didn’t have very developed views,” [John] Yoo recalled, echoing blunter observations by the Texan’s White House colleagues.
So, on top of everything we’ve already learned with regards to Gonzales’ on-the-job performance, we now also learn that our AG was looked down upon by his White House colleagues, and was given a nickname belonging to the feeble, incompetent brother from The Godfather.
It inspires confidence in the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, doesn’t it? Maybe he’s been in the wrong job all along.
It seemed as though Chris Matthews’ election analysis hit rock bottom a couple of weeks ago when he expressed an inordinate interest in Fred Thompson’s odor.
But it turns out, his reports can still manage to get a little more troubling.
On the June 24 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, during a discussion about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), host Chris Matthews asked Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief — or does it make a case against it?” […]
Asked by Time managing editor Richard Stengel, “What are you suggesting by asking does this diminish her as a commander in chief by being surrounded by women?,” Matthews replied: “No, the idea that it — well, let me just get historic. We’ve never had a woman commander in chief.”
As a follow-up to his question, Matthews said: “But isn’t that a challenge, because when it comes down to that final decision to vote for president, a woman president, a woman commander in chief, will be an historic decision for people. Not just men, but women as well.” Turning to New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, Matthews added: “Elisabeth, you’re always thinking about these things.” Bumiller referred to Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher — women who were elected to lead Israel and the United Kingdom — and said: “[W]e all remember these women…. I think we can get there.” Matthews responded, “But we’ve got Patton and John Wayne on our side.”
As Atrios put it, “It’s one thing to project misogyny onto the public-at-large and question whether they’re willing to support a woman for president, it’s quite another to question whether the mere presence of women makes one unfit to be president.”
Today’s Must Read: next up in The Washington Post‘s series on Cheney’s vice presidency, how he and his allies made torture (sorry, “cruelty”) the rule.
New York Times digs deep into Rupert Murdoch’s sprawling media empire and political network. That and other political news of the day in today’s Election Central Morning Roundup.
A reporter finally gets a chance to ask Karl Rove whether he played any role in the Justice Department’s prosecution of Don Siegelman, the Democratic former governor of Alabama.
While America is bogged down in Iraq, China’s been quietly winning friends and influencing people.
This week at TPMCafe’s Book Club, we’re discussing Josh Kurlantzick’s Charm Offensive: How China’s Soft Power Is Transforming the World. Kurlantzick argues that “China savvily has amassed significant âsoft powerâ around the world through aid, formal diplomacy, public diplomacy, investment, and other tools” and is going to start to use it. We ignore this geopolitical shift, according to Kurlantzick, at our own peril.
Debating China’s quiet rise to power will be Naazneen Barma, Mauro De Lorenzo, Ely Ratner, Devin Stewart, John Feffer, Reed Hundt, and Daniel Drezner.
Satisfied with the non-denial denial? When a reporter finally got a chance to ask Karl Rove about the claims he had a role in orchestrating the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman (D) all he managed was a dodge: that he didn’t know anything about the phone call in which his alleged role was revealed.
Well, obviously, that doesn’t mean anything since no one is claiming he was a party on that call.
Folks are ignoring this one at their peril. With the track record of the US Attorney firings, when the president’s top advisor is accused, credibly and specifically, of orchestrating the prosecution of a Democratic governor, he should be able to give a straightforward answer.
Apparently he can’t.
Siegelman’s sentencing is tomorrow.