The undertone of the article is that it a *bad* thing about the Democratic party that is full of so many non-religious people when what should be regarded as a bad thing is that so many intelligent people (who on average tend to be less religious) are scared shitless of Fundies in the Republican party and vote Democratic because of that.
Posted by: Jason Soon at January 9, 2003 06:19 AMIf you go back to the original Public Standard article on which this was based you find a lot more facts about this. It says the polarization formed not by the fundies changing the intolerance - that's been a fixture for ages - but by the secularizts hardening their views of fundies. In my view this is a result of the abortion, creationism and school prayer wars.
Posted by: Dick Thompson at January 9, 2003 07:40 AMI made a dumb mistake. That should be Public Interest.
Posted by: Dick Thompson at January 9, 2003 07:41 AMI guess it boils down to who you find nuttier and more dangerous: the religious right or lunatic left. I think the rr is more numerous but less dangerous than the ll, but the ll isn't really prominent in the Democratic party, they sort of get diluted with all the other special interests groups.
Posted by: Steve at January 9, 2003 09:46 AMI love how in the Twilight Zone, Secularism is an evil thing. It's articles like this that help remind me why an anti-Marxist like Godless would vote for Gore.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at January 9, 2003 06:35 PM