"The first thing to understand about US politics is that almost 40% of the population is evangelical. There can be no constructive political discourse with that type of demographic skew."
Again, I don't think that the 'irrational beliefs' of evangelicals are unique to them, so as I said before if that's the point it also fails.
Yes, I know it's longer, but that's the reasoning for the statement, not the statement itself.
Breaking the argument down:
Statement:
The first thing to understand about US politics is that almost 40% of the population is evangelical. There can be no constructive political discourse with that type of demographic skew.
So there can be no constructive political discourse because 40% of the population is evangelical. Why?
Reasoning:
1. In addition to the generally irrational beliefs held by evangelicals (e.g. the earth being 6000 years old), they
2. tend to vote as a unified block, and
3. The remaining 60% of the population generally has disparate interests and doesn't have a strongly unified vote.
As I said, throw out #1, because it isn't unique to their religion and you have two things: 1. an organized voting block with the sole unifier being religion and 2. a disparate remainder of the population with varied interests and religions.
The first part of the remainder is also bunk, because only 56% of evangelicals lean republican. 28% lean democrat, the remainder are unaffiliated, according to Pew. So even if you took the 40% total which isn't accurate, you'd have a voting block of only about 21%, with 10% going the other side.
But even if it were accurate, it again applies to any organized religion, unless you think that evangelicals are for some reason unique in their being aligned solely on the basis of religious belief. That would be a really weird argument given the wars fought over religion prior to the formation of protestant religions.
the second part, sure, the population has varied interests. No disagreement there.
Regarding point 1, the belief that the earth is 6000 years old is much more commonly held by evangelicals: Of all the major religious groups in the U.S., white evangelical Protestants are the most likely to reject evolution. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of white evangelicals say that humans and other living things have always existed in their present form, while roughly one-in-ten white evangelicals (8%) say that humans evolved through natural processes.
The rest of your argument hinges on the rejection of evolution being shared among other groups and therefore being invalid, but as you can see, the rejection of evolution is largely a evangelical phenomenon.
It's interesting to see how quickly a discussion of US "evangelicals" turns into a discussion of US "white evangelicals." As if they are the only ones that count.
Sure, in present day United States it's largely an evangelical phenomenon.
In 19th century Europe and in modern central and south America, however, this is not associated with evangelical protestants, though protestants generally are more likely to have an issue with evolution.
Still, that's not really it - you've got a ton of irrational beliefs held by the catholic church. Unless you think those specific beliefs are what prevent constructive discourse?
Again, I don't think that the 'irrational beliefs' of evangelicals are unique to them, so as I said before if that's the point it also fails.