What are religious grounds supporting discrimination against African-Americans?
1. What are religious grounds for 10% supporting discrimination against African-Americans?
[see following for reference]
PRRI Religion & Politics Tracking Survey
http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/May-2014-TOPLINE.pdf May 29, 2014Do you think that it should be allowed to refuse to provide products or services to groups of individuals because it violates religious beliefs?
Individual % yes
Gay or lesbian 16
Atheist 15
Jewish 12
Black 10
Public Religion Research Institute
WaterStreet
The survey would have much more value if it had asked each respondent as to why they answered the way they did. Now, that would be valuable information.
The more I think about it, the more I think of what a waste of time and money for a survey. Why didn't they get demographics (age, income, education level, location, etc.)? Why didn't they ask other opinions that might suggest the political leanings of the respondents?
The site solicits donations. Why throw money away for results that can't be drilled into and analyzed?
As it stands, analysis can't be done on the results.
The site solicits donations. Why throw money away for results that can't be drilled into and analyzed?
As it stands, analysis can't be done on the results.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
The 'Methodology' was more interesting than the survey; it was perhaps even less comprehensible.
Let's see... say we figure five age groups, two sexes (probably), four regions, five races, four education groups and three telephone usage groups. ('Telephone usage' is the only one that is actually defined, though 'Sex' seems pretty certain. I invented the other numbers while hoping to use low numbers.) How many individuals will end up in each of the various combinations of the 'weighted' categories?
If the sample was selected reasonably properly, it probably does match general population attitudes. A thousand+ is a good sample size (if obtained through a valid selection process; and it's not at all clear how a selection would result in valid 'weighted categories').
Somewhere in there, there is a sub-group of 20-30 yr old, mid-Western Asian female high school graduates who use cell phones almost exclusively. I bet it's a small group.
Regardless, getting to the question topic, the number who feel that [discrimination by small-business owners on religious grounds against "African-Americans" should be allowed] is pretty small. It's not necessarily that any of those who answered had such religious beliefs; the question was technically hypothetical about the preservation of someone else's religious beliefs, i.e., the beliefs of unnamed small-business owners (potentially even if it contradicted beliefs of the respondents).
There are 'Aryan' "religious groups". Their basic belief is in the sanctity of the apparently fictional 'Aryan' race. I've skimmed some internet literature presented by one or two of the organizations, but I don't recall enough to provide examples here. My memories of it put it somewhere on a par with the so-called beliefs of Scientology. (I.e., similar degree of plausibility, not on a par in terms of social acceptability.)
Technically, then, there are actual "religious grounds" that specifically elevate those of 'Aryan' descent above others. You'll have to run your own searches to find their "scriptures".
Whether or not anything like those beliefs is behind the 10% who felt it should be allowed is a separate question.
Tom
The final sample was weighted to six different parameters — age, sex, geographic region, race, education and telephone usage — to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total adult population.How would that break down?
Let's see... say we figure five age groups, two sexes (probably), four regions, five races, four education groups and three telephone usage groups. ('Telephone usage' is the only one that is actually defined, though 'Sex' seems pretty certain. I invented the other numbers while hoping to use low numbers.) How many individuals will end up in each of the various combinations of the 'weighted' categories?
If the sample was selected reasonably properly, it probably does match general population attitudes. A thousand+ is a good sample size (if obtained through a valid selection process; and it's not at all clear how a selection would result in valid 'weighted categories').
Somewhere in there, there is a sub-group of 20-30 yr old, mid-Western Asian female high school graduates who use cell phones almost exclusively. I bet it's a small group.
Regardless, getting to the question topic, the number who feel that [discrimination by small-business owners on religious grounds against "African-Americans" should be allowed] is pretty small. It's not necessarily that any of those who answered had such religious beliefs; the question was technically hypothetical about the preservation of someone else's religious beliefs, i.e., the beliefs of unnamed small-business owners (potentially even if it contradicted beliefs of the respondents).
There are 'Aryan' "religious groups". Their basic belief is in the sanctity of the apparently fictional 'Aryan' race. I've skimmed some internet literature presented by one or two of the organizations, but I don't recall enough to provide examples here. My memories of it put it somewhere on a par with the so-called beliefs of Scientology. (I.e., similar degree of plausibility, not on a par in terms of social acceptability.)
Technically, then, there are actual "religious grounds" that specifically elevate those of 'Aryan' descent above others. You'll have to run your own searches to find their "scriptures".
Whether or not anything like those beliefs is behind the 10% who felt it should be allowed is a separate question.
Tom
During most of my career I frequently did business analyses for certain very large companies. If I had access to the raw data from that survey being discussed, I could present it with different kinds of spins to emphasize or de-emphasize a wide range of things. All of it being the truth, but not the whole truth. I learned this from 40 years of being marketed to, almost daily, by vendors trying to sell technology to my employers.
There is an old saying: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."
There is an old saying: "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."
" I could present it with different kinds of spins to emphasize or de-emphasize a wide range of things."
That is something that I can confirm and have seen with my own eyes. Reports and statistics done for entire countries to decide new technology to be placed on European market. Everything was true, but done from an angle to move certain amount of money, economy in a known direction. And it was done at the technical legislation level, the European standards.
In the end remain the question: who pays for the survey, report, analysis? Then you know the influence and the direction.
That is something that I can confirm and have seen with my own eyes. Reports and statistics done for entire countries to decide new technology to be placed on European market. Everything was true, but done from an angle to move certain amount of money, economy in a known direction. And it was done at the technical legislation level, the European standards.
In the end remain the question: who pays for the survey, report, analysis? Then you know the influence and the direction.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
While I'd prefer to attempt to get back to main question, let me dispel any doubt how I can be cynical about most things, polls in particular. Dispelling myths about ability to buy elections, as seem case in Mississippi, where nobody goes ahead of powered incumbent, ends up in lead after his (nobody) buddies are marched off to jail shortly before election, here's one who spent more on dinners than opponent nobody's total campaign, where nobody was outspent something like over 25-1:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/politics/primaries-cantor/ - , By Deirdre Walsh Wed June 11, 2014
Cantor conceded the race with 99% of precincts reporting from the Richmond-area district showing him trailing Dave Brat 56% to 44
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/2014-virginia-primary-eric-cantor-five-takeaways-107694.html - By JAMES HOHMANN | 6/10/14
Last Friday, Cantor’s campaign distributed an internal poll from John McLaughlin that showed him ahead 34 points over Brat. The firm, McLaughlin & Associates, said the margin of error for the May 27-28 survey was only 4.9 percentage points.
That same day, the Daily Caller published a poll from the new GOP firm Vox Populi that had Cantor ahead 13 points, 52-39, with 9 percent undecided.
Brat won by 11 points, 55.5 percent to 44.5 percent
“None of these candidates” earned 30 percent of the vote when The Associated Press called the race, outpacing the leading actual candidate, Robert Goodman, a retired state Economic Development commissioner from Las Vegas who’s run statewide twice before and shares a last name with the Vegas mayoral dynasty, at 25 percent
;)
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/politics/primaries-cantor/ - , By Deirdre Walsh Wed June 11, 2014
Cantor conceded the race with 99% of precincts reporting from the Richmond-area district showing him trailing Dave Brat 56% to 44
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/2014-virginia-primary-eric-cantor-five-takeaways-107694.html - By JAMES HOHMANN | 6/10/14
Last Friday, Cantor’s campaign distributed an internal poll from John McLaughlin that showed him ahead 34 points over Brat. The firm, McLaughlin & Associates, said the margin of error for the May 27-28 survey was only 4.9 percentage points.
That same day, the Daily Caller published a poll from the new GOP firm Vox Populi that had Cantor ahead 13 points, 52-39, with 9 percent undecided.
Brat won by 11 points, 55.5 percent to 44.5 percent
In Nevada, nobody wins
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/2014-nevada-primary-107701.html - By STEVEN SHEPARD | 6/11/14“None of these candidates” earned 30 percent of the vote when The Associated Press called the race, outpacing the leading actual candidate, Robert Goodman, a retired state Economic Development commissioner from Las Vegas who’s run statewide twice before and shares a last name with the Vegas mayoral dynasty, at 25 percent
;)
ASKER
Survey begins like it is more about modern views like for Catholics (& others) where there may be changes evolving within for issues like birth control, where it can be part of medical plan, and opinions differ on whether employer should be able to deny health benefits if boss does not share belief of employee, Closer to news of the times. It then proceeded down to above list and I was about to click to move on when MQ just popped into head and I could not resolve well on my own at the time.
The order seems near intuitive for public view, and people don't really have to be predermined to be truthful in a survey, they may just respond way they think they should for such question - or even lie to befuddle pollster. Still, the four are near equal? Multiply or divide results by 2, who would give a care? I would wonder but for the last one, why present at all? Could it only be what one would respond to any similar question about anything?
Or where text or dogma are found for support for anti-gay or anti-godfearing, can there be something found regarding race - for one or more specific races? (or the opposite - support for equal treatment?)
Not so old example, Boy Scouts discriminate against gays. In high court it was found gay/lesbian organizations actually approved of, supported, the Boy Scouts having right to so discriminate. as private nonprofit organization those gay could also discriminate against non-gays belonging to their organization, fair is fair. Justices agreed. But this Q is (as I recall) regarding public for profit organization that is small and closely held - all owners said sharing same faith system and how to correlate them to health systems.
So religions want for profit businesses to be able to discriminate against blacks. Whatever the percent may really be, my wonder is what the basis would be for having such a belief, whether right or wrong.
The order seems near intuitive for public view, and people don't really have to be predermined to be truthful in a survey, they may just respond way they think they should for such question - or even lie to befuddle pollster. Still, the four are near equal? Multiply or divide results by 2, who would give a care? I would wonder but for the last one, why present at all? Could it only be what one would respond to any similar question about anything?
Or where text or dogma are found for support for anti-gay or anti-godfearing, can there be something found regarding race - for one or more specific races? (or the opposite - support for equal treatment?)
Not so old example, Boy Scouts discriminate against gays. In high court it was found gay/lesbian organizations actually approved of, supported, the Boy Scouts having right to so discriminate. as private nonprofit organization those gay could also discriminate against non-gays belonging to their organization, fair is fair. Justices agreed. But this Q is (as I recall) regarding public for profit organization that is small and closely held - all owners said sharing same faith system and how to correlate them to health systems.
So religions want for profit businesses to be able to discriminate against blacks. Whatever the percent may really be, my wonder is what the basis would be for having such a belief, whether right or wrong.
2. Why? What grounds?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Last call, I return to assess closure to move on and 'surprise' this got yet another two comments to help me summarize. As much as I tried to achieve focus, it appears overall a remaining lack to be so constrained, and yet possible to retain some level of difficulty to communicate.
As such, in summary, I'll attempt to combine and re-form responses, and likely miscommunicate unanticipatedly. If you find it so, do tell. In short there be three types of 'answers' - very roughly.
1) there are none! - paulsauve
2) there are some, - viki2000
3) repeat¿ - others
#1 seems self-explanatory
#2 found in 1st link (oh, how I distaste having to lookup the embedded myself)
#3 is like people getting used to responding a certain way, and continuing to so do
Elaborating on #3, Suppose the numbers given above are entirely accurate. If so, then it could be that as many as 10% are simply giving 'blind' answer of beliefs to all questions. Thus, only 2% would be left specific for Jews, 5% at atheists, 6% vs gays, etc. If less than 10% specific to blacks, then same level of correspondence be given other categories.
Elaborating on #2, summarizing links as ABC, at best I get (perhaps you can do better)
A) Sharpton:
Others who sometimes argued different racial groups had been placed on separate continents by God and that served as proof they should not mix.
B) We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students
C) Heterosexism is killing people in my neighborhood
Of these, only (A) seems applicable to MQ. While I'd thought on diasporas such as Cain, post-flood, Miriam, Babel, I couldn't pull out an answer myself beyond #1 and #3, forgetting/neglecting the aspects of Pangaea, contintental drift, etc.
That means that while we may not have identified scripture, we may still have identified dogma/belief/tradition with scope of 'religion' to be a subset of the 'supposed' 10% group. There may well be other beliefs remaining to be uncovered, but to date 'Aryan' in itself does not appear as 'religious' grounds to participants for this round.
Do permit self to comment on any misconception (we may revisit?).
As such, in summary, I'll attempt to combine and re-form responses, and likely miscommunicate unanticipatedly. If you find it so, do tell. In short there be three types of 'answers' - very roughly.
1) there are none! - paulsauve
2) there are some, - viki2000
3) repeat¿ - others
#1 seems self-explanatory
#2 found in 1st link (oh, how I distaste having to lookup the embedded myself)
#3 is like people getting used to responding a certain way, and continuing to so do
Elaborating on #3, Suppose the numbers given above are entirely accurate. If so, then it could be that as many as 10% are simply giving 'blind' answer of beliefs to all questions. Thus, only 2% would be left specific for Jews, 5% at atheists, 6% vs gays, etc. If less than 10% specific to blacks, then same level of correspondence be given other categories.
Elaborating on #2, summarizing links as ABC, at best I get (perhaps you can do better)
A) Sharpton:
Others who sometimes argued different racial groups had been placed on separate continents by God and that served as proof they should not mix.
B) We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students
C) Heterosexism is killing people in my neighborhood
Of these, only (A) seems applicable to MQ. While I'd thought on diasporas such as Cain, post-flood, Miriam, Babel, I couldn't pull out an answer myself beyond #1 and #3, forgetting/neglecting the aspects of Pangaea, contintental drift, etc.
That means that while we may not have identified scripture, we may still have identified dogma/belief/tradition with scope of 'religion' to be a subset of the 'supposed' 10% group. There may well be other beliefs remaining to be uncovered, but to date 'Aryan' in itself does not appear as 'religious' grounds to participants for this round.
Do permit self to comment on any misconception (we may revisit?).
ASKER
DaPointage. For 3 answers between 5, I'd tend to go something like a 10ea then subtract something to get bonus to 'best'. Maybe 4 get 5 pt, ea best get remander of 30. Too hard to find 'best' to start award(s).
I lean towards identifying god's continents as the more appropriate, but I had to derive it myself from multiple links, reluctant to call myself best even at no points.
Revisiting again, one can interpret a question as a statement. And vice versa. I declare MQ as about 'religious', not 'religion' as standalone. Yet while a 'reach', this:
> What kind of religion are you taking about?
Can equate to this:
> IMHO - there are none!
Intended or not (who's to say) - so 'best goes @ viki2000.
I lean towards identifying god's continents as the more appropriate, but I had to derive it myself from multiple links, reluctant to call myself best even at no points.
Revisiting again, one can interpret a question as a statement. And vice versa. I declare MQ as about 'religious', not 'religion' as standalone. Yet while a 'reach', this:
> What kind of religion are you taking about?
Can equate to this:
> IMHO - there are none!
Intended or not (who's to say) - so 'best goes @ viki2000.
"B) We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students"
Could you be more specific?
What university? What kind of students? Refused based on what reasons and when?
Could you be more specific?
What university? What kind of students? Refused based on what reasons and when?
ASKER
I can answer if you need, I copied it directly from your link.
ASKER
Pt 'magic' all Done.
Unintended hocus pocus @ viki, any1, who noticed a brief comment I made prior to the two preceding this one. While I was editing it Viki posted, I needed other window for copy/paste, noticed/replied. Completed my edit and thought for sure EE was going to deny that submission, (had done so before, so I thought) but it did not. Hence the supposed chronology above is refuted. and <heh> viki2000 may be left rubbing eyes and shaking head --- yep, done did magic to achieve done did. = = may all beware this edit potential for other questions.
Unintended hocus pocus @ viki, any1, who noticed a brief comment I made prior to the two preceding this one. While I was editing it Viki posted, I needed other window for copy/paste, noticed/replied. Completed my edit and thought for sure EE was going to deny that submission, (had done so before, so I thought) but it did not. Hence the supposed chronology above is refuted. and <heh> viki2000 may be left rubbing eyes and shaking head --- yep, done did magic to achieve done did. = = may all beware this edit potential for other questions.