Posted by ashleyfmiller
The communications director at the SCA has just posted a blog post about the importance of bipartisanship. In which she somehow fails to mention Edwina Rogers once AND uses stats that prove exactly how wrong she is. This is a nightmare.
I think that it is more reasonable to say that the secular movement needs to be “non-partisan” rather than “bipartisan”, but I agree with her conclusion — we need to be reaching out to everyone of every party.
However, the statistics she uses only serve to emphasize the point that the Republican party and Republicans in general are much worse on secular issues than others.
But the GOP is not comprised of only conservative Christians. Another recent study found that 34 percent of Republicans (and 51 percent of the general public) agree that religious conservatives have too much control over the GOP.
One cannot use a statistic that says Republicans are far behind the rest of America in thinking that there is too much religion in government as a positive stat on the Republican stance on religion. And you’re just comparing them to a statistic which they are a part of, compare them to Democrats (60%) and you see an even more telling difference.
Then, she points to 30% of nones who are Republican.
As a result, we haven’t been able to reach quite a few on the conservative side who are either nontheists, or who may be receptive to the secular agenda. And there are quite a few. Nearly 30 percent of “nones”—people who do not identify with any religious affiliation—identify as Republican.
To begin with, the nones include atheists, agnostics, secular unaffiliated, and religious unaffiliated. Oh, religious you ask? Yes, in fact over 36% of the nones are religious. So there are more religious nones than there are Republican nones.
But let us move beyond the fact that having a no affiliation doesn’t make you secular, and address the fact that this is still less than a third of the nones. I’m not saying they don’t matter, but to act like this supports the idea that Republicans are not incredibly anti-secular is absurd.
Finally, and this is a horrific misrepresentation of the data, she writes:
Between the Republican “nones” and the 34 percent of Republicans that don’t like where the Religious Right is taking their party– that’s a lot of people we’re missing if we work with only the other side.
Firstly, there is no reason to believe that the nones and the 34% of Republicans don’t overlap entirely. Secondly, the way it’s worded is incredibly unclear and makes it seem like the 30% nones is a percentage of the Republican party and should be added to the 34%, it at least makes it look like those two things don’t overlap. Finally, it completely overstates the percentage of nones in the Republican party. Nones make up 16% of the population, and none Republicans would therefore be 4.8% of the population. 36.4% of the population considers itself Republican, making the nones maybe 13% of Republicans. And again, no reason to think that they aren’t part of the 34% and no reason to think that they are secular.
To pretend that those happy to mix church and state aren’t the vast majority of the Republican party and establishment is disingenuous, at best, and at worst, it is a transparent lie in an attempt to get us to support Edwina Rogers. Misrepresenting statistics is not the way to rally the community around her. And it wouldn’t hurt to make this more explicitly an endorsement of your new executive director, because not saying it directly makes this seem a lot less honest.
The SCA should stick to their main argument, which is that we should be reaching out to everyone regardless of party. Instead they’re playing a game of Lying with Statistics and avoiding every opportunity to be straightforward. I am so very disappointed in them.
And I want to like Edwina Rogers, I really do. I love the idea of a Republican on our side, I really do. But the constant dissembling from her and the SCA is making it absolutely impossible to be on their side, and it’s really quite heartbreaking.