Slashdot Mirror

I wouldn't say "most Americans". There's just a very vocal minority out there that presents itself as representing the majority.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

A recent Gallop poll asked Americans which of 3 statements they agreed with most. 46% chose strict creationism, i.e. "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years".

This excludes the "God-guided evolution" believers, who make up 32%, so 78% of Americans believe in either creationism or intelligent design.

Only 15% believed humans came from non-God-guided evolution.

Sadly, I think this shows creationists are way beyond a "vocal minority", and are at the very least a vocal plurality in the USA.

Many people with Ph.D. are religious. Here you can find some interesting (statistical) information: Does More Educated Really = Less Religious?

46% = earth less than 10,000 years old; "god directly created everything we see" = young earth creationist

32% = earth is probably pretty old, god directed the path of evolution = old earth creationist

Overall 78% of Americans are creationist, according to the Gallup poll published June 1 2012.

If there is any vocal minority out there, it is the group that denies creationism that is vocal about it (presumably less than 22%)

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

Your citation does not match your assertion. 24% of women and 20% of men believe abortion should be banned. That's a pretty small percentage of the population and that's of course from 2003 which is almost a decade ago. If you look at more recent numbers you see the same percentage of the population thinks that abortion should be banned. Pro-life vs Pro-Choice is a very different argument as it is a personal question which follows your assertion in that more Americans are pro-life now than pro-choice.

It would seem that while more people think that abortion is not the choice for them, they still think it should be available to those that think differently. It's about forcing your beliefs on others in terms of banning abortion.

"But few independents are "occupy protesters" or supporters of them."

I think you are wrong, and on-site news interviews have tended to back me up. A lot of the protesters are liberals, but a lot of them are independents, too, regardless of whether that makes them strange bedfellows.

"O implies I does not mean that I implies O."

Of course. But that doesn't imply that I am wrong, either. Most independents and libertarians I know very strongly suport the Occupy movement, even if they aren't protesting themselves. Yet.

The first thing I ran across on Google:
November 2011. 24% of independents support the movement, down from previous surveys. 17% oppose. 20% approve of the way the protest is being conducted. 26% disapprove.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150896/support-occupy-unchanged-criticize-approach.aspx

The camping and confrontations with police are turning independents away from Occupy.

The study did actually include whether respondents had flown or not in the past few years. Here is the gallup presentation - http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx - unfortunately it doesn't include the raw data, but it's still revealing.

What I found interesting was the rose-tinted presentation. Of course, another way of looking at the survey is that 57% rated the TSA's effectiveness as "somewhat effective" or worse - and that's not what I'd want from folks screening for bombs.

Actually, no. If you read the article (I know, this is /. but this is something that will almost certainly be in the poll data...), there isn't much of a difference in perception between frequent fliers and non-fliers. Of course, this is all just perception, nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the TSA...

That was my first thought as well. So I actually looked at the article to see if it had data on that. It does.

Just over half of Americans report having flown at least once in the past year. These fliers have a slightly better opinion of the job TSA is doing than those who haven't flown. Fifty-seven percent of those who have flown at least once and 57% of the smaller group who have flown at least three times have an excellent or good opinion of the TSA's job performance. That compares with 52% of those who have not flown in the past year.

Looking at the aggregated data itself, fewer non-fliers gave it "excellent", but not by much. The thing that does stand out (to me), though, is that only 6% of non-fliers didn't know (or didn't have) a perception of the TSA. Meaning that 94% of non-fliers (or just under half of the sample) are basing their choice on either old data, or second-hand data.

[Opinions on the TSA's effectiveness don't seem to vary between fliers and non-fliers.]

The data on ages is also quite interesting; the older the respondent, the less likely they were to give an "Excellent" score (for both perception and effectiveness). I wonder if that is due to them having more experience of pre-TSA nonsense?

Of course, fundamentally, this poll is complete nonsense. All it tells us is people's perceptions of the TSA and its effectiveness; that's just marketing. There is no data on the actual effectiveness, and surely that is the important thing? Sadly we seem to live in a world that cares far more about perceptions than about substance...

elderly voters will almost certainly have a hard time voting for the guy that prioritizes tax-breaks for millionaires over social security and medicare

Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument Gallup/USA Today

Would you be surprised if younger respondents had a more positive view of the TSA? If so, be surprised!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx

The relevant data is in the table titled 'Perceptions of TSA Screening Effectiveness, by Age Group'.

Not according to the poll results at least. instead flier's opinions were roughly the same as non-fliers http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/Americans-Views-TSA-Positive-Negative.aspx "57% of the smaller group who have flown at least three times [in the past year] have an excellent or good opinion of the TSA's job performance"

I'd be very interested to see a breakdown in these poll results by age. I would not be at all surprised to see younger, more Internet-connected respondents have a more negative view of the TSA, while the Fox News generation (average viewer age 65, average age for Bill O'Reilly viewers 71) tends toward a more positive view. We see the same thing with numerous other issues where pretty much everyone on sites like Slashdot agrees, but the actual politics seem to be lagging behind. For instance, 50% of Americans now favor legalizing marijuana according to recent Gallup Polls, but while 62% of people in the 18-29 age bracket are in favor, only 31% of senior citizens do. And those seniors vote at a MUCH higher rate than young people. This is why issues relevant to old people are discussed endlessly, while issues important to the young are simply ignored. It's why college funding keeps getting cut every year while Medicare and Social Security remain untouchable.

Get out there and vote this November! Even if it's just for the lesser of two evils, vote anyway. The only way this imbalance will be fixed is if young people start voting at the same rate as older Americans.

47% based in a recent Gallup poll.

Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better,

And dramatically expanded congressional power in the process. Some will say "for the better", I fear for 50 years down the road.

and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler.

I thought thats why we hated Bush. Why the double standard? Its also a bit pathetic to give 100% credit to Obama for a military / intelligence effort that he only played a ~30% role in (in terms of years).

You do realize that "credit" and "fault" on things that take years to do cant be placed solely on the person who happened to be in office when they came to fruition, right? Ill give Obama credit for having been the guy to OK the final raid, but lets not make this into some "Obama, Terrorist Hunter" thing, especially after all the criticism Bush got.

The real double standard is that you are lauding Obama's overseas accomplishments and ignoring some pretty galling stuff. Like that Bush gets lambasted for 2 wars-- both of which were congressionally authorized. Then Obama goes into Libya with NO congressional authorization, and one of his Cabinet remarks that "UN authorization is much better", and everyone cheers. Seriously, what the heck? Im glad we went to Libya, but Im appaled at the regard Obama seems to have for "rule by the people", especially after criticizing Bush for HIS wars a mere year before he entered office.

It also ignores that Obama seems to LOVE to do things that heavily divide us, often pushing actions / laws through that the majority of Americans are against. For instance, this healthcare reform you're pushing?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121943/benefits-healthcare-reform-tough-sell-americans.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140981/verdict-healthcare-reform-bill-divided.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145496/favor-oppose-repealing-healthcare-law.aspx
Over the last few years, public opinion has ranged from "slightly against" to "slightly for" to "majority want this thing repealed". Thats not a victory.

Or his initial executive decree regarding abortion when he entered office, which resulted in everyone's tax money going to fund it. Except one problem:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx
For the majority of the time he has been in office-- including when he issued the decree- the majority of Americans have been pro-life. So essentially, the majority of americans are now being forced to pay for the minority of americans to do things they find reprehensible. Wonderful, progress indeed.

This isnt "progress", its Obama doing whatever he wants, and to hell what the majority of americans think.

Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better,

And dramatically expanded congressional power in the process. Some will say "for the better", I fear for 50 years down the road.

and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler.

I thought thats why we hated Bush. Why the double standard? Its also a bit pathetic to give 100% credit to Obama for a military / intelligence effort that he only played a ~30% role in (in terms of years).

You do realize that "credit" and "fault" on things that take years to do cant be placed solely on the person who happened to be in office when they came to fruition, right? Ill give Obama credit for having been the guy to OK the final raid, but lets not make this into some "Obama, Terrorist Hunter" thing, especially after all the criticism Bush got.

The real double standard is that you are lauding Obama's overseas accomplishments and ignoring some pretty galling stuff. Like that Bush gets lambasted for 2 wars-- both of which were congressionally authorized. Then Obama goes into Libya with NO congressional authorization, and one of his Cabinet remarks that "UN authorization is much better", and everyone cheers. Seriously, what the heck? Im glad we went to Libya, but Im appaled at the regard Obama seems to have for "rule by the people", especially after criticizing Bush for HIS wars a mere year before he entered office.

It also ignores that Obama seems to LOVE to do things that heavily divide us, often pushing actions / laws through that the majority of Americans are against. For instance, this healthcare reform you're pushing?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121943/benefits-healthcare-reform-tough-sell-americans.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140981/verdict-healthcare-reform-bill-divided.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145496/favor-oppose-repealing-healthcare-law.aspx
Over the last few years, public opinion has ranged from "slightly against" to "slightly for" to "majority want this thing repealed". Thats not a victory.

Or his initial executive decree regarding abortion when he entered office, which resulted in everyone's tax money going to fund it. Except one problem:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx
For the majority of the time he has been in office-- including when he issued the decree- the majority of Americans have been pro-life. So essentially, the majority of americans are now being forced to pay for the minority of americans to do things they find reprehensible. Wonderful, progress indeed.

This isnt "progress", its Obama doing whatever he wants, and to hell what the majority of americans think.

Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better,

And dramatically expanded congressional power in the process. Some will say "for the better", I fear for 50 years down the road.

and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler.

I thought thats why we hated Bush. Why the double standard? Its also a bit pathetic to give 100% credit to Obama for a military / intelligence effort that he only played a ~30% role in (in terms of years).

You do realize that "credit" and "fault" on things that take years to do cant be placed solely on the person who happened to be in office when they came to fruition, right? Ill give Obama credit for having been the guy to OK the final raid, but lets not make this into some "Obama, Terrorist Hunter" thing, especially after all the criticism Bush got.

The real double standard is that you are lauding Obama's overseas accomplishments and ignoring some pretty galling stuff. Like that Bush gets lambasted for 2 wars-- both of which were congressionally authorized. Then Obama goes into Libya with NO congressional authorization, and one of his Cabinet remarks that "UN authorization is much better", and everyone cheers. Seriously, what the heck? Im glad we went to Libya, but Im appaled at the regard Obama seems to have for "rule by the people", especially after criticizing Bush for HIS wars a mere year before he entered office.

It also ignores that Obama seems to LOVE to do things that heavily divide us, often pushing actions / laws through that the majority of Americans are against. For instance, this healthcare reform you're pushing?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121943/benefits-healthcare-reform-tough-sell-americans.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140981/verdict-healthcare-reform-bill-divided.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145496/favor-oppose-repealing-healthcare-law.aspx
Over the last few years, public opinion has ranged from "slightly against" to "slightly for" to "majority want this thing repealed". Thats not a victory.

Or his initial executive decree regarding abortion when he entered office, which resulted in everyone's tax money going to fund it. Except one problem:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx
For the majority of the time he has been in office-- including when he issued the decree- the majority of Americans have been pro-life. So essentially, the majority of americans are now being forced to pay for the minority of americans to do things they find reprehensible. Wonderful, progress indeed.

This isnt "progress", its Obama doing whatever he wants, and to hell what the majority of americans think.

Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better,

And dramatically expanded congressional power in the process. Some will say "for the better", I fear for 50 years down the road.

and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler.

I thought thats why we hated Bush. Why the double standard? Its also a bit pathetic to give 100% credit to Obama for a military / intelligence effort that he only played a ~30% role in (in terms of years).

You do realize that "credit" and "fault" on things that take years to do cant be placed solely on the person who happened to be in office when they came to fruition, right? Ill give Obama credit for having been the guy to OK the final raid, but lets not make this into some "Obama, Terrorist Hunter" thing, especially after all the criticism Bush got.

The real double standard is that you are lauding Obama's overseas accomplishments and ignoring some pretty galling stuff. Like that Bush gets lambasted for 2 wars-- both of which were congressionally authorized. Then Obama goes into Libya with NO congressional authorization, and one of his Cabinet remarks that "UN authorization is much better", and everyone cheers. Seriously, what the heck? Im glad we went to Libya, but Im appaled at the regard Obama seems to have for "rule by the people", especially after criticizing Bush for HIS wars a mere year before he entered office.

It also ignores that Obama seems to LOVE to do things that heavily divide us, often pushing actions / laws through that the majority of Americans are against. For instance, this healthcare reform you're pushing?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121943/benefits-healthcare-reform-tough-sell-americans.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140981/verdict-healthcare-reform-bill-divided.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145496/favor-oppose-repealing-healthcare-law.aspx
Over the last few years, public opinion has ranged from "slightly against" to "slightly for" to "majority want this thing repealed". Thats not a victory.

Or his initial executive decree regarding abortion when he entered office, which resulted in everyone's tax money going to fund it. Except one problem:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx
For the majority of the time he has been in office-- including when he issued the decree- the majority of Americans have been pro-life. So essentially, the majority of americans are now being forced to pay for the minority of americans to do things they find reprehensible. Wonderful, progress indeed.

This isnt "progress", its Obama doing whatever he wants, and to hell what the majority of americans think.

That's the first step in doing anything about it.

Doing what? There have been no substantive proposals for changes in policy, nor have there been any significant policy changes in the aftermath of Wikileaks AFAIK. And there haven't been any changes for the simple reason that what Wikileaks "revealed" was nothing new or surprising.

The cables I'm sure have also had repercussions diplomatically, what with all the cases of US ambassadors lying through their teeth.

Yes, because it would be so much better if US diplomats were, you know, undiplomatic. Maybe they should just walk up to heads of state and say things like "you are a moron and your wife looks like a cow". How about it?

The leaks have also taken away a lot of the US's credibility, which will probably impact them strongly in the future, especially with regards to situations like Iran, and whatnot.

Doesn't seem to have had much of an effect:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146771/worldwide-approval-leadership-tops-major-powers.aspx

Reference: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

The number of people who believe that God has his hand in the creation of the world has not changed much in the last 30 years. What is going to change in the near future to make a difference in those numbers? If people haven't figured it out in the last 30 years, I have my doubts that 30 more years is going to make much of a difference. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

When 46 percent of America's population outright rejects the scientific process based on religion I'd say it is a serious concern.

Any poll conducted by telephone is inherently biased. Assuming they're calling (predominantly? only?) land-line phones

"Predominantly" to the extent that "Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region." (see the "Survey Methods" section at the end).

Gallup and a few others have consistently gotten numbers between 40-48% for this data, but for reasons I don't fully understand, CBS polls on the same issue get slightly higher results. They get routinely in the 50-55% range http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-965223.html. I'm not sure why this discrepancy exists, but it isn't a single yearly issue and it doesn't seem to be connected to how the questions are phrased, which suggests there's some more subtle issue going on.

The data for both this years Gallup poll and previous years does show some fairly predictable patterns. For example, by most of the previous polls, around 60% of Republicans are Young Earth Creationists while a little under 40% of Democrats are Young Earth Creationists. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx. This should not however be taken as general evidence that Republicans or conservatives are dumb or uneducated. The GSS as part of their regular survey does a set about general science knowledge, and that data suggests that when not asking questions about evolution or age of the Earth, progressives and conservatives look very similar, and there's some evidence that the people with the least science knowledge are self-identified moderates http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/03/the-republican-fluency-with-science/ although exactly what is going on is not clear. http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/political-affiliation-and-scientific.html. This is part of a general trend which suggests that moderates in the US are often not very well informed.

Also, while Gallup says that the fraction of people who reject evolution has stayed roughly constant, there's a potentially more interesting trend in the data, over the last 30 years there's been a steady increase in people who say that evolution occurred with God taking no part in the process. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx. Most of that is movement not from the strict creationists but from a reduction in the size of the group that thinks that evolution happened with God guiding it. This may reflect the general decline of the moderately religious, especially so called "mainline Protestants" or it may be due to other effects such as general increases in partisanship.

Gallup and a few others have consistently gotten numbers between 40-48% for this data, but for reasons I don't fully understand, CBS polls on the same issue get slightly higher results. They get routinely in the 50-55% range http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-965223.html. I'm not sure why this discrepancy exists, but it isn't a single yearly issue and it doesn't seem to be connected to how the questions are phrased, which suggests there's some more subtle issue going on.

The data for both this years Gallup poll and previous years does show some fairly predictable patterns. For example, by most of the previous polls, around 60% of Republicans are Young Earth Creationists while a little under 40% of Democrats are Young Earth Creationists. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx. This should not however be taken as general evidence that Republicans or conservatives are dumb or uneducated. The GSS as part of their regular survey does a set about general science knowledge, and that data suggests that when not asking questions about evolution or age of the Earth, progressives and conservatives look very similar, and there's some evidence that the people with the least science knowledge are self-identified moderates http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/03/the-republican-fluency-with-science/ although exactly what is going on is not clear. http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/2011/04/political-affiliation-and-scientific.html. This is part of a general trend which suggests that moderates in the US are often not very well informed.

Also, while Gallup says that the fraction of people who reject evolution has stayed roughly constant, there's a potentially more interesting trend in the data, over the last 30 years there's been a steady increase in people who say that evolution occurred with God taking no part in the process. http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx. Most of that is movement not from the strict creationists but from a reduction in the size of the group that thinks that evolution happened with God guiding it. This may reflect the general decline of the moderately religious, especially so called "mainline Protestants" or it may be due to other effects such as general increases in partisanship.

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted May 3-6, 2012 with a random sample of –1,024—adults, aged 18+, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

It's the very first line of the report. http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/155006/Creationism_120601.pdf

Ah but those people are not politically relevant or culturally influential, other than being laughed at.

The 40% of the population of the USA who believe in literal creationism are not politically relevant?

I was pretty sure that 40% was a bit high so I started poking around for numbers. According to Wikipedia (original source here), Evangelicals only make up around 26% of the population. This is the only large group I was aware of that would adhere to literal creationism as a rule, though they do not hold the belief universally. From my understanding a small percentage of Catholics adhere to literal creationsim also.

I then checked out the Gallup Poll that states the 40% number. I found this difficult to believe, but the wording of the question may influence the answer. I think that perhaps many Americans across all religions (including those who vaguely 'believe in god') don't really understand the difference between 10,000 years and 10,000,000 years. Maybe a lot of (even reasonably intelligent) people just don't care that much, and file it all away as "stuff that happened a long time ago".

40% of Americans is hardly a subset or tiny sect. Literal creationism runs counter to accepting evolutionary theory. Another 40% or so believe in a god inspired evolution (basically the group you're referring to).

So yes, you are correct. There are nuts who take the bible WAY too literally. But 40% means, even with a strong margin for error, over 100 million people in the US think evolution isn't real. I don't think you should necessarily be modded down, but I do think you might want to take a strong look at the incredibly anti-science and anti-intellectual movement that is GAINING, not losing, steam in America.

Once again, assumptions on who "they" are when referring to conservatives in general make for patently outlandish slander, just as someone saying "all liberals are (communists||socialists||whatever) who want to purge the earth of anyone who doesn't think as they do" would be. The hyperbole makes for non-meaningful discussions.

What percentage of self-described conservatives even know what PNAC is? The letter you were referring to, if I got it right, has 41 signatories? Yet from Gallup 41% of all Americans consider themselves conservative , a number that has been fairly steady since 1990. Last I checked, not only did I not think that what 41 people's opine defines what 41% of Americans think, I didn't have to have the debating skills of a prepubescent teenager to make my points. Thank you for making mine.

Survey without religion bias And 64% of Americans would hold onto a religious belief even if it was contradicted by clear science and evidence. In 2009 a survey showed only 4 in 10 Americans believed in evolution.

That is pretty bad.

Does a large enough portion of the population believe in legalization to get it done? No (it's not even a majority).

Your facts are out of date. See what the polls say.

PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-high 50% of Americans now say the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from 46% last year. Forty-six percent say marijuana use should remain illegal.

When Gallup first asked about legalizing marijuana, in 1969, 12% of Americans favored it, while 84% were opposed. Support remained in the mid-20s in Gallup measures from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, but has crept up since, passing 30% in 2000 and 40% in 2009 before reaching the 50% level in this year's Oct. 6-9 annual Crime survey.

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, "Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States." The National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2009 found that "16.7 million Americans aged 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, an increase over the rates reported in all years between 2002 and 2008."

The only really anonymous way of using the internet I've seen is TOR

We keep inventing new things all the time. I can see a wifi mesh netork independant on ICANN or the government set up. Like pot smokers, they can't put us all in prison.

Yes, there are nutcases that believe NASA never landed on the moon. Six percent of the population disbelieves the most widely televised event in history. If the rhetoric keeps up global warming is going to be placed into the same category.

To answer your question 48% of the American public thinks climate change is exaggerated. That number has actually /risen/ by over half in four years. Climate change is considered by most people to be a catch-all for environmental stewardship. As "people" lose faith in climate change they correspondingly also lose faith in environmental stewardship. The result is that environmental standards and causes are actually losing public support. The result is we have things like real world concrete pollution standards actually being lowered.

I will clarify my point. This is not about being 'right' or 'wrong', or the accuracy of one study versus another. This is not about scientific consensus (which is over-rated and shown to be a bad way to judge the validity of something time and time again throughout history). This is about trying to shift focus away from an abstract with a publically perceived questionable foundation. Instead we need to focus on concrete things that people can relate to and understand. The public understands that lead paint is bad, that mercury in their drinking water is terrifying and so on. Because the public could relate to these we had enough public support to legislate doing something about it.

The only thing that matters is the public perception, or as I put it "people" - not scientists. The public at large cannot conceive the difference between climate and weather. Climate change is simply too abstract for the public to understand or accept. Shift the focus back onto basics like pollution, sustainability, recycling and the like. Fight pollution for the sake of fighting pollution, this is something that people can relate too. By doing this many of the goals and concerns that relate to 'climate change' will be addressed as a beneficial side affect.

That depends where you draw the line. I personally draw it somewhere around "believes in ghosts", but let me pick a less controversial goalpost, which I think all the reasonable people I know would agree with, particularly including the religious ones: most Americans thought evolution is false in 2009. (Good news! Percentage down since 2004.)

That does not include those who believe evolution was guided by God. It only includes those who believe God created humans in their present form, i.e., we didn't evolve. However, it does include those who believe we didn't actually evolve, but God created the universe to appear in every way as if we did. That's not a scientifically testable hypothesis, so is compatible with all the evidence for evolution. As far as I know, there aren't many people that believe this without also claiming literal truth of the bible (which is testable and appears to be false, absent the God-faked-the-physical-world escape clause). However, I'm not an expert in the demography of American Christian fundamentalists.

Other different sources, with different phrasings of the question, include: just below 40% in 2006; 39% in 2009; 40% in 2010; 41% in 2011. So the CBS numbers are higher than most, but you would have a hard time arguing that it's much less than 40%.

Now, most churchgoing folks are indeed nice, sane, civilized people. But fundamentalism is not a "big media" invention; there is a real, serious problem with people believing, and therefor potentially acting, counter-factually.

Now, I am an atheist. I recognize that faith and science are compatible. Make any untestable statement you want, as long as you recognize that it's an article of faith. Science only deals with testable claims and the physical world. We may have more nuanced disagreements about morality, rationality of faith, etc. However, the argument above doesn't enter into metaphysics or moral philosophy. It just says: if a religious fundamentalist is someone who denies scientific facts on a religious basis, then we have a lot of them in the US, not a tiny minority.

That depends where you draw the line. I personally draw it somewhere around "believes in ghosts", but let me pick a less controversial goalpost, which I think all the reasonable people I know would agree with, particularly including the religious ones: most Americans thought evolution is false in 2009. (Good news! Percentage down since 2004.)

That does not include those who believe evolution was guided by God. It only includes those who believe God created humans in their present form, i.e., we didn't evolve. However, it does include those who believe we didn't actually evolve, but God created the universe to appear in every way as if we did. That's not a scientifically testable hypothesis, so is compatible with all the evidence for evolution. As far as I know, there aren't many people that believe this without also claiming literal truth of the bible (which is testable and appears to be false, absent the God-faked-the-physical-world escape clause). However, I'm not an expert in the demography of American Christian fundamentalists.

Other different sources, with different phrasings of the question, include: just below 40% in 2006; 39% in 2009; 40% in 2010; 41% in 2011. So the CBS numbers are higher than most, but you would have a hard time arguing that it's much less than 40%.

Now, most churchgoing folks are indeed nice, sane, civilized people. But fundamentalism is not a "big media" invention; there is a real, serious problem with people believing, and therefor potentially acting, counter-factually.

Now, I am an atheist. I recognize that faith and science are compatible. Make any untestable statement you want, as long as you recognize that it's an article of faith. Science only deals with testable claims and the physical world. We may have more nuanced disagreements about morality, rationality of faith, etc. However, the argument above doesn't enter into metaphysics or moral philosophy. It just says: if a religious fundamentalist is someone who denies scientific facts on a religious basis, then we have a lot of them in the US, not a tiny minority.

What's the "Most religious state?" What's the most Republican state? What state can't host the Olympics without embarrassing the USA with their corruption? What state lost $2.5M to stupid Nigerian "You have been selected to win $100M dollars!" scams? What state bans effective sex-ed? Banning D&D in public schools... polygamy... and these people are too innocent to know that the religious right GOP crowd they want to join knows for sure that every Mormon will burn in Hell.

And after yet another epic f--kup, I have to listen to posts like this... on an article about how Utah can't keep track of their Medicare records, and this somehow is an opportunity to blame Obamacare? Give me a break.

1. Veteran's Aministration. This system is totally government-run. The hospitals and doctors are all on the government payroll.
2. Medicare/Medicaid. The doctors and hospitals are paid based on services rendered, but the US Government is paying all (or nearly all) of the money. Essentially the US Government is acting like one really large insurance company, with your taxes being the premiums (even if you aren't covered). About 1/4th of US residents are under model 1 or 2.
3. Private insurance. The doctors and hospitals are paid based on services rendered, but a private insurance company is paying a large portion (if you are lucky the lion's share) of the bill. They in turn get their money from whoever pays their premiums. If that is a company, they are passing the costs of this on to their customers, making them less competitive in a global marketplace that includes companies in other countries that don't have to do this. About 46% of US residents are under this model.
4. "Free Market". This person has no coverage of any kind. They generally don't go to doctors, because almost none of them can afford it (if they could afford such things, they would have bought into option 3). If they get sick enough that it's obviously life-or-death, they go to the most expensive place in the system (an emergency room) where they have to be treated by law, and then generally don't pay because there's no way a typical person can pay a sudden ER bill in the 10's of thousands of dollars or more. So their treatment ends up being paid by users of option 2 or 3. More than a quarter of US residents are using this model, and the percentage is increasing every year.

I'm pro-legalization, but it's only very recently that a plurality of Americans were: Record-High 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use. Of course, your points that neither public opinion nor legislation on this issue is based on reason or science is correct. I am not sure what the right answer is, though. Perhaps delegated voting would help, but it assumes that the experts trusted by people to make correct decisions are actually experts and do not have hidden agendas. Really, better education and a voting system where people actually believe that their votes matter is the right way to go.

I disagree with the outcomes of both of your examples.

Regarding gay marriage: it would be legalized in some states and not legal in other states. The polls I've seen has approval of gay marriage somewhere around 50% in the US. Obviously, more liberal states would be higher than 50% and more conservative states would drop below 50%. In the longer term, more and more states would approval gay marriage because there's been a clear trend towards accepting gay marriage over time. Older Americans remain the most opposed and younger Americans are the most in favor - so you can see where this trend is going and what happens as new generations enter voting age and older voters die off. If I remember correctly, approval was something like 10% around 1980. That's a 40% increase in the past 30 years, which is another indicator of which way the trend is heading. (This is also why Republicans will eventually have to stop fighting gay marriage: they're losing the battle a little more each year.)

Article: For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage; Republicans and older Americans remain opposed (May 20, 2011)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

Regarding Joe from Juniper: the only reason Joe would be forced to surrender his land is if the other residents are voting purely from a position of selfish greed. I think most people would be a little more generous to their fellow residents. If Joe is seen as having unfairly acquired the land or is some kind of horrible Ebenezer Scrooge type person, then maybe I could see things going the other way.

Both political parties are willing to throw science under the bus when it suits their agendas.
That's all good and fine, but - if we accept it as true - all it proves is that the Republicans have more of their beliefs in conflict with science than Democrats. If you don't believe me, then sit down and add up the number of issues where Republicans are against the science, and then add up the same thing for Democrats. I recently heard a discussion where they were attempting to figure out the level of bias on the Left and Right and they needed an issue where Democrats are largely in conflict with the science. The best candidates for the left are anti-nuclear power (which is actually a left-wing in the 1960s, I doubt it has much traction now) and some of the organic food, anti-genetically modified food, and anti-vaccine movements. All of them look pretty small, though. I bet you'd have a hard time arguing that these are issues where a majority of the Left agree with any of them. On the other hand, creationism and anti-global warming are majority opinions among Republicans.
http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/September-October%202008/dunlap-full.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx

Americans Say Reagan Is the Greatest U.S. President
How Great was Ronald Reagan? Our 40th President's Place in History
Why Was Ronald Reagan the Greatest President of the 20th Century?

President Reagan will be remembered in glory long after you are in the ground.

Hate Vs Happy and Its Affect on Your Health
From the article: There is an old saying that goes. "He who can anger you conquers you."

Uh, no. Today's advocates of gay marriage (such as the above poster) did not support gay marriage 20 years ago. This is not necessarily because they were opposed to it, exactly. More like they had never heard of it. In any case, these people have made it a political issue by:

1) Pretending the Constitution, which was written 200+ years ago, has an opinion on gay marriage (it doesn't).
2) Hysterically denouncing anyone who didn't get with the program as "bigots," making bogus and ahistorical comparisons to slavery, Jim Crow, and anti-miscegination laws.
3) Claiming that opposition "only" comes from something called the "religious right," language employed mainly by psychotically hyper-politicized citizens with too much time on their hands and no sense of perspective.
4) Claiming that gays are being "de-humanized" because bureaucrats aren't issuing them pieces of paper. They have forgotten these pieces of paper, called "licenses," are inherently discriminatory because, well, they're licenses. The people who denounce opposition to gay marriage are (mostly) the same people who oppose polygamy, despite the fact that polygamy has actually existed in many parts of the world and is certainly no less "natural" than same-sex marriage. (Polygamy is a bad idea, of course, arguably worse than same-sex marriage. But the proponents of gay marriage who oppose polygamy do not oppose it for those reasons, but because it is "patriarchal" and therefore evil.)
5) The inevitable acceptance of gay marriage will not come about because advocates, through careful, thoughtful debate and dialog, prevail upon citizens of good will to reconsider their skepticism, but rather because of things like this: U.S. Adults Estimate That 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian.
6) If it weren't for the fact that Santorum is braying insanely about the Venezuelian threat, I would have been more than happy to vote for him just to see Bill Maher's head explode. Pissing off douchebag hipsters is always a civic duty.

Also, that "most people's view" crap is over. Gallup.com - Majority of American's Favor Legal Gay-Marriage

Bigotry isn't as popular as it used to be.

-GiH

I mean, it doesn't bother you that most voters oppose legalized marijuana?

But they don't. The percentage of Americans who want it legalized has risen from 12% in 1968 to 50% in 2011.

They oppose it because they believe the lies spewed buy government, like this:

Marijuana smoke contains some of the same cancer-causing compounds as tobacco, sometimes in higher concentrations. Studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

They use to flat-out say that marijuana causes cancer until a study of long term users was done. Pot smokers had fewer (the difference was statistically insignifigant) cancers than non-smokers, and those who smoked both pot and tobacco had half the cancers of those who smoked only tobacco! So they weasel around with language to make it sound like pot causes cancer, when it may actually prevent cancer.

The majority of voters (not people, but people who actually go vote) still disfavor legalization

I googled, and could find no evidence that your assertion is correct. On the contrary, Gallup says half of Americans favor legalization.

I believe your numbers are simply out of date. When Gallup started asking in 1968, only 12% thought it should be legal.

Whether or not you think so, the actual data says otherwise:
* Marijuana legalization recently crossed 50% support.
* Gay marriage, which has been steadily shifting in favor of legalization.
* Leaving Afghanistan polls at 56% in favor, and has for months.
* Iraq War polls at 66% opposed, and the majority has been opposed to the war since at least 2006.

The only presidential candidate who even comes close to following the majority's wishes on those issues is Ron Paul, and he's generally been dismissed as a nutcase.

Whether or not you think so, the actual data says otherwise:
* Marijuana legalization recently crossed 50% support.
* Gay marriage, which has been steadily shifting in favor of legalization.
* Leaving Afghanistan polls at 56% in favor, and has for months.
* Iraq War polls at 66% opposed, and the majority has been opposed to the war since at least 2006.

The only presidential candidate who even comes close to following the majority's wishes on those issues is Ron Paul, and he's generally been dismissed as a nutcase.

And 6% of the American poulation too.

Apparently homosexuality is morally wrong to the majority of people in the US

No.

Can you name a period of time where people have been happy with their government?

You don't seem to know a lot about history. In WWI, people volunteered to give their life for their government. (Although that changed after the war just dragged on and on)

Look at congressional approval ratings: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145238/congress-job-approval-rating-worst-gallup-history.aspx

But that was last year. This year:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance

Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

Islam is an evil religion that tells them to kill non muslims. They would use it if teh could get away with it.

Sorry, whatever protection you have against terrorists is highly inefficient. The only reason you aren't dead is because no-one rellay wants to kill you. So no, you are wrong. Most muslims are good people that doesn't want to kill anyone.

Exactly. Chrisq's commentary is based on utter ignorance. There was a large Gallup study about the Muslim community, the largest ever conducted about this topic, published as a book in 2008. In a nutshell, the study shows that Muslims are as peaceful as other people and share amazingly many views with e.g. most Americans. And, not very surprisingly, the very small militant minority among them is primarily motivated by political -- not religious -- reasons just like most other militants.

How about 28% of British Muslims wanting to make Britain an Islamic state or 6% of British Muslims thinking that the tube bombings were wholy justified That is over 170,000 muslims in the UK would like to see us killed. Sorry for ignorantly objecting to it.