Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

They Took Their Country Back

Meet the people who gave the GOP control of the House of Representatives

25% of Americans do not believe in evolution.

21% of Americans believe there are real sorcerors, conjurers, and warlocks.

25% do not believe in astrology.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, four in 10 Americans mistakenly believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates a panel that makes decisions about end-of-life care.

20% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth. – Gallup 1999

33% don’t believe the 1st Amendment applies to all religions.

24% believe President Obama is a Muslim.

Voter participation in American mid-term elections is notoriously low. The 2010 election is no exception. Only 41.5% of eligible voters cast a ballot. Approximately 56% voted for the GOP. That means 23% of eligible American voters gave the GOP control of the House of Representatives. Look once more at that list above and ask yourself – Is this any way to run a country?


  1. Rashaverak

    in the classic play and film, Inherit the Wind, based on the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    The Monkey Trial took place almost 90 years ago. It seems like some people want to relitigate it on the merits.

  2. Strummerson

    Only 25% don’t believe in astrology?

    I didn’t know I was part of such a large minority.

    But seriously, did you mean astronomy?  I can’t believe that 75% of Americans believe in astrology.  My best friend does, and so does a beloved aunt.  I chalk it up to endearing eccentricity on their part.

    How many believe in dragons?

  3. Rashaverak

    Lawrence and Lee never intended Inherit the Wind to be a story about the creationism-evolution conflict. Instead, as Lawrence says, “[They] used the teaching of evolution as a parable, a metaphor for any kind of thought control. It’s not about science versus religion. It’s about the right to think.” Randall seconds this thought, saying, ” When we opened on April 21, 1955, I did not think the play would be taken seriously; the fundamentalists had became a lunatic fringe. The play is one-thousand times more pertinent today. You think this is over? It’s never over ” [n. 36] ….

  4. Rashaverak

    Although this connection with the present-day religious climate never was part of Lawrence’s and Lee’s plan, to deny the relevance is to ignore a powerful strain of thought in American culture today. As Randall says, “It wasn’t meant to be political. It’s an act of fortuity the way Pat Buchanan has come along and the Christian Coalition has become more powerful. At the time we did the play [originally], I thought the matter was settled. I thought the only people who believed the Bible literally were kooks … Now they’re going to control the next Republican convention ” [n.37]. Randall and the National Actors Theatre capitalize on this currency from the first image of the play. Draped across the entrance to the Royale Theatre there is a banner, quoting Buchanan’s denunciation of evolution. This act signals the audience from the beginning that this is not an ordinary play. The lessons one learns within the theatre apply to the outside world. Never is Lawrence’s and Lee’s stage setting more applicable than in this performance of the play. The conflicted issue in Inherit the Wind can happen in any American town at any time if the forces of society are present.

    These cultural forces surrounding the current staging of the Inherit have surfaced as two strains. One is the religious right’s rhetoric of anti-evolution; the other is the recent debate in the Tennessee legislature, once again, about the teaching of creationism. Speaking out most vocally for the religious right is Buchanan. Buchanan has stated: “I think [parents] have a right to insist that Godless evolution not be taught to their children or their children not be indoctrinated in it ” [n.38]. The vehemence of Buchanan’s speech reveals that behind this creationism-evolution debate, in addition to the idea of who will control, is the belief that the other side of the conflict is not only socially wrong but morally wrong. This applies precisely to the orthodox-progressive conflict which Hunter discusses. For characterizing the orthodox position is the fervent faith in the rightness of their beliefs. To them, there is only one truth, but to the progressives, there may be many – thus, the vast world of difference between the two groups.

Comments are closed.