from this article here
Thirty percent of Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God, according to a recent Gallup survey. While nearly 50 percent agree that Scripture is “inspired” by God, only three in ten say that it should be interpreted literally. Another 17 percent say the Bible is merely an ancient book of stories recorded by man. According to Gallup, the view that the Bible is divinely inspired, but should not be taken literally, has been the most common opinion over the 40 years that the pollster has been querying Americans on the issue. Gallup noted that the “high point” in the number of Americans believing in the literal interpretation of Scripture was 40 percent in 1980 and 1984, with the low coming in 2001, when only 27 percent said they thought the Bible was the actual, literal word of God.
Among specific religious groups, Gallup found that Protestant were the most hard-core in their convictions about the Bible, with 41 percent believing in a literal interpretation of Scripture and 46 percent saying it is inspired by God. By contrast, 21 percent of Catholics believe the Bible is the actual word of God, while the percentage goes up to 65 percent for Catholics who believe it is the inspired word of God. As for respondents claiming no religious persuasion, only five percent thought the Bible is the actual word of God while, predictably, 63 percent thought it was nothing more than a book of legends and fables.
so, does this mean that the fundies have a lot more work to do or perhaps our perception is driven by a media that seems obsessed with promoting christian dogma for some reason? if less than half of all christians in general don't believe the word of god is 100% accurate, then why are they so quick to defend it when science and truth prove it wrong?
any thoughts welcome!
So, your position is that government is not a problem. Yet you complain about what that government is doing, for the people it represents.
It seems as if you're arguing against yourself.
A government is a tool. It is no better, nor worse, than what its practitioners do with it--much like a religion, really.
Reagan was not really a fundie, and there were definitely fundies before Reagan. Have you heard, for example, of Joseph McCarthy?
I could actually make a very good case for government causing the expense of higher education.
Doesn't PBS beg for money from people?
I'm not seeing any moral consistency in your arguments here.
PBS very much DOES push moral agendae. It may just be that you agree with them, so you don't see a problem.
They don't do it for all shows, but if you believe they are unbiased, you're incorrect.
That agenda also changes depending on which party is in power at the time, which, if anything, is even more dangerous than a consistent position.
I said, "Bias," not "indoctrination."
And too be fair, here's one where I believe they did the right thing by noting what other media would not:
This does not constitute an endorsement of anything on my part. It's merely an observation that everyone has some bias, and how it comes into play varies by circumstance.
But do be logical--if you get money from the government, by way of Congress, you are going to say what that congress wants to hear, or risk losing that budget. It may not happen at once, but it will happen eventually. It may even be the side you disagree with that subverts them--imagine if there was a huge fundie sweep of Congress (60% or more). Do you think PBS would get a budget for any show on evolution?
On the whole, they do a decent job on early science, etc, for kids. But they did (I can't say if they do recently) heavily promote, for example, the USDA position that eating grain is healthy, despite continuing evidence that it is not. In fact, for a long time, they were arm in arm pushing it harder. When I first started watching, it was for 1/4 grains in the diet. I believe the push reached 60% in official government sources--whose purpose was to sell grain for the American agricultural industry.
And during the Clinton administration, I watched several kids shows trying very hard to equate the anti-federalists with strong central authority, for what purpose I can't fathom. It seemed they were attempting to denigrate anything conservative.
I see no point in debating further. Good day.
Why the hate for PBS? Shows like Sesame Street and NOVA helped generations of kids learn and grow. I do see quite a few right-wing talking points listed, so I'm curious. Are you also against Nickelodeon and its shows (like Spongebob Squarepants), Dr. Seuss books, the NEA, and/or vaccinations?
I'm just curious here.
Spongebob is actually proof of a conservative agenda. Both spongebob and patrick are gender neutral creatures, but are portrayed as obviously male. This is surely a conservative move to push the hetero agenda and rail against gender neutrality. Plus they take a natural environment like the sea and add a squirrel directly to the environment, only God himself could make such a miracle happen. Many of the shows center around the good conservative value where the small business owner mister krabs pays slave wages but the employees still work hard just because its fun.
Oh yea Elmo is actually heading up the conspiracy against the right.
Just watch fox news Sesame Street is all loaded with liberals.
Your response is not logical nor productive.
If you read the comments on that video, you'll see that the so-called "liberals" are not very bright or logical, either.
Which proves my comments elsewhere about orthodoxy.
Cant even agree with you and win.. You see enemies everywhere.
SpongeBob is a representation of the 7 deadly sins:
Greed: Mr. Krabs
Lust (for life): SpongeBob
Yes, modern government is not a problem. And that reference is not just to the Federal Government.
You are raising a strawman by bringing in the "moral consistency" thing. The original reference was why in the U.S.A. religion still has such a big hold. And what made you think I am for PBS asking for money?
Thanks Kentk - I wish you luck over there - you need it!
A lot of people are making the right noises so I guess it pays to focus on the positive side of things - the formation of history is even more time consuming than watching paint dry but it is what we are seeing and with the advantage of communication which the internet affords us, we, the people may at last be able to turn the tides in our own favour. The jolly controllers dont like it one little bit but its my opinion that they have had their day and lost the battle for peoples minds - its all over bar the shouting now.......
I reckon we arent too far from the day when the shame and judgmentalism which is associated with escaping the clutches of any religion is seen in the past tense to have been as barbarous as the medieval instruments of torture which it has replaced.......
I remember a young woman who get pregnant out of wedlock when I was about 7 (which is 50 yrs ago) and she was the shame of the neighbourhood for miles around - nowadays, its not only common but totally socially accepted - the church has lost the power it once had to impose its terrible guilt trips and is fighting a losing battle if it thinks its going to get it back - its too factionalised for one thing and is increasingly under pressure for answers which it cannot furnish - leaps of faith just dont cut it anymore as, except in the most desperate of cases, people are learning to think for themselves...... we have to rebuild the whole of society with kinder, more knowledgeable foundations - stone age explanations just dont cut the mustard now that we have alternatives and also now that we can discuss those alternative without fear of getting burned at the stake etc......