Pollsters: most Americans disagree with Rosie
Posted November 11, 2006
An evangelical Christian pollster has surveyed Americans to see whether Rosie O'Donnell's views of "radical Christians" are widespread. Only 10 percent of those polled strongly agreed with her. Another 18 percent agreed "somewhat." Fifteen percent disagreed "somewhat" and 48 percent disagreed strongly.
Here's more from the Barna Group:
“Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like the United States.” Those words were not spoken by Osama bin Laden but by comedienne turned talk-show hostess Rosie O’Donnell on a nationally broadcast program in October. Her statement generated a wide range of reactions. A new nationwide survey of that reaction, conducted by The Barna Group, suggests that although few Americans would challenge her right to make such statements, just as few share her point of view.
(To read the rest of the Barna Group's findings, click the link below.)
Lost in the Noise
Despite the media hailstorm stirred by her controversial remark, only one out of every six American adults (17%) was aware of her words. The group most likely to know of her verbal assault was evangelical Christians, who were twice as likely as other Americans (36%) to have heard about her statement. Even within the Christian community, other segments remained largely ignorant of the slur. For instance, only 17% of all other adults who consider themselves to be Christian but are not evangelicals knew of her words, similar to the statistics among Catholics (18%) and Protestants (20%). The episode failed to generate much buzz among non-Christian adults: only 10% of those who associate with a non-Christian faith, and 14% of atheists and agnostics were aware of her remarks. The outburst was no better known within the gay and lesbian community, of which Ms. O’Donnell is an outspoken champion: only 14% of adults who associate with that lifestyle were aware of her comments.
Few Agreed with Rosie
Most Americans disagreed with Ms. O’Donnell’s point of view. In total, just 10% strongly agreed with her statement and 18% agreed somewhat, while 15% disagreed somewhat and 48% disagreed strongly. In total, then, about one out of every four Americans (28%) agreed to some extent, while more than twice as many – two out of every three (63%) – disagreed.
Levels of disagreement varied substantially across faith groups. For instance, eight out of ten evangelicals strongly disagreed compared to only one out of three non-Christians. Strong disagreement was measured among half of all Catholics (47%), nearly six out of ten Protestants (57%), and eight out of ten Revolutionary Christians (79%).
The general pattern related to the expression of strong emotion showed that only four people groups out of the 64 studied were more likely to strongly agree than to strongly disagree with the statement. Those segments included liberals (32% strongly agreed, 23% strongly disagreed); gays and lesbians (41% versus 27%); atheists and agnostics (26% to 18%, respectively) and those who do not associate with the Christian faith (30% versus 20%, respectively).
In contrast, every Christian-oriented faith segment examined was many times more likely to express strong disagreement than strong agreement, ranging from evangelicals (79% strong disagreement versus 3% strong agreement) and Revolutionaries (79% - 0%) to notional Christians (40%-11%).
Appropriate Behavior and Response
Just one out of every three adults (35%) said that such comments were appropriate for national television broadcasts. (The program was aired on the ABC network.) Approval of broadcasting such content was least likely among evangelicals (23%), Revolutionary Christians (20%), conservatives (24%) and African-Americans (25%). There were several population segments in which a majority expressed support for making such comments on nationally broadcast programs: upscale adults (52% of those who are college graduates and have household incomes above $60,000 annually), atheists and agnostics (54%), homosexuals (55%), people who are not associated with the Christian faith (56%), and liberals (61%).
Although most people felt Ms. O’Donnell’s comments were wrong and were inappropriate for television, only half of the nation (49%) believes that she owes the Christian public an apology. Such sentiment was most common among evangelicals (63%), born again adults who are not evangelicals (62%), conservatives (60%), African-Americans (61%) and people with a high school education or less (61%). Individuals least likely to expect such an apology were those not associated with Christianity, liberals, homosexuals and upscale adults.
Relatively few people – just 25% – felt Ms. O’Donnell should be fired by ABC for her statement. The only segments in which a majority embraced such action were evangelicals (51%) and Revolutionary Christians (51%).
Context for the Opinions
The research demonstrates some important cultural realities, according to George Barna, who directed the research study.
“There are several significant outcomes from this experience,” the California-based author explained. “First, notice that relatively few people were even aware of Miss O’Donnell’s comments. That highlights the difficulty of cutting through the clutter of media noise to grab people’s attention and influence their thinking. Second, notice that a substantial portion of the adult population shares some level of agreement with Miss O’Donnell’s perspectives on Christianity. As churches and other ministries seek to advance the Christian message, progress will be made in an increasingly challenging, if not hostile environment. Finally, the fact that so few adults who consider themselves to be Christian felt that they were even owed an apology speaks volumes about the self-image of Christians and the centrality of their faith in their life.”
Research Details
The data in this report are from a national survey conducted by The Barna Group with a random sample of adults, age 18 and older, conducted in October 2006. In total, 1003 adults were interviewed. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Statistical weighting was used to calibrate the aggregate sample to known population percentages in relation to demographic variables.
“Evangelicals” meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as “evangelical.”
“Revolutionaries” were classified on the basis of meeting 11 specific criteria. They have a clear sense of the meaning and purpose of their life; describe their relationship with and faith in God as the top priority in their life; consider themselves to be "Christian"; read the Bible regularly; pray regularly; deem their faith to be very important in their life; contend that the main objective in their life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul; describe God as the "all-knowing, all-powerful being who created the universe and still rules it today"; have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is important in their life today; believe that when they die they will go to heaven only because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior; and say that their faith in Christ has "greatly transformed" their life.
“Notional Christians” are those who describe themselves as Christian but are not born again. In other words, they do not believe that when they die they will have eternal life solely because they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.
The Barna Group, Ltd. (which includes its research division, The Barna Research Group) is a privately held, for-profit corporation that conducts primary research, produces media resources pertaining to spiritual development, and facilitates the healthy spiritual growth of leaders, children, families and Christian ministries. Located in Ventura, California, Barna has been conducting and analyzing primary research to understand cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors since 1984. If you would like to receive free e-mail notification of the release of each new, bi-monthly update on the latest research findings from The Barna Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna website (www.barna.org).
© The Barna Group, Ltd, 2006.
Archived Comments
In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
I disagree with Rosie O'Donnel since she appears to direct her statements to evangelicals who are against her lesbian lifestyle. This, I believe, is the same rant that singer Elton John expresses in his attacks on evangelicals.
I would include, even though I disagree with some of his anti-Islam statements, Pat Robertson as "not" more dangerous to America as known terrorist of Al Quaeda. With the exception of his mistaken remarks about President of Venezuela, he appears only to support legal USA goverment actions to deal with terrorist. --not violate US laws
Below is an article of posting of Al Quaeda terrorist against USA Muslims who do not believe in Al Quaeda agenda:
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Jihadists trash Muslim U.S. rep
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Sunday, November 12th, 2006
WASHINGTON - Why is Al Qaeda trash-talking Keith Ellison?
In January, Ellison, 43, will become America's first Muslim congressman. The Minneapolis Democrat, who converted to Islam while in college, got 56% of his district's vote in last Tuesday's election.
But since his victory, Osama Bin Laden's chattering goons have been jeering, not cheering.
In secret Internet chat rooms they call him "the first Jewish Muslim that goes to Congress."
A lawyer and state legislator who will be Minnesota's first black congressman, Ellison campaigned on social issues, not religion.
Jihadi pundits have said his election was just "a comedy," and labeled him a "fool" trying to "deceive us."
The messages have appeared in two jihadi chat rooms, according to the SITE Institute, a terrorism investigative group.
One chat room, called Al-Hesbah, is solidly tied to Al Qaeda Central, Bin Laden's network, counterterrorism analysts say. Many Al Qaeda communiques first appeared on the site.
"He is one of them, [a] one-way ticket to Hell," said one jihadist message about Ellison.
A posting in one forum said: "My God, if you have 1 billion Muslims like him, we shall [continue to] fight you as the Muslim fights the infidel."
Ellison was at a rural retreat Friday and could not be reached for comment.
But his spokeswoman was not surprised by the negative comments in militant chat rooms.
"Why would Al Qaeda embrace Keith's success? He's the opposite of what they're about," said spokeswoman Bridget Cusick.
He has said he will take his oath of office with his hand upon the Koran, the Islamic holy book.
--------------------------------------------
In conclusion, American evangelicals are actually helping Al Quaeda when they attack innocent American Muslims or any Muslim who has nothing to do with Al Quaeda. Furthermore, the baseless attacks on the Prophet Muhammad Ibn Abdullah (Peace Blessings Upon Him) help to misguide young Muslim to these terrorist groups. Look at what happen to some the Muslim youth in Canada and England.
You know, it's interesting the double standard we have for women in our society. No matter how intelligent, funny, or talented, if that woman is not svelte and sleek to the point of breeding rumors about anorexia, she is automatically attacked on her looks. Fat is indeed a feminist issue.
The comments of readers of this blog discussing the other post about O'Donnell openly made fun of her looks, and suggested that, because she was fat, she was unhappy and unable to sustain a relationship with a man. Thus, they say, she became a lesbian. This is insulting to all lesbians, and frankly untrue. I've known some awfully good looking lesbians.
What this points up, of course, is that sexism is everywhere, and appears to be particularly well distributed among the "evangelicals" who call themselves Christians.
It kind of reminds me of the many statements people of these same views, and often of the same denominations, said about blacks during the '50s and '60s when our nation was deep in the throes of the civil rights movement. Nearly all of the southern religious establishment of the time (the Episcopal Church being one of the few exceptions) taught not only that segregation was right, but that it was mandated by the bible. Jerry Falwell was in this number. And, given that all fundamentalist fears have sex at their root, the sex that was feared was not between people of the same sex, it was between people of different races. The M word: Miscogyny. And if you go back and read the old pamphlets and books and articles, you'll see that they were as adamant about myscogyny being biblically banned as their brethren are today about gay and lesbian sex.
So where are all the anti-mysogynists today? Well, they're all anti-gays today.
What changed? It wasn't theology, it was society. Our society has developed to the point that we cannot conceive of mysogyny being condemned nor segregation supported by the bible. The same thing is happening with respect to gays and lesbians, and there will be a considerable shift over the next twenty years, as people who grow up in our more open society today become adults.
Just as we created a society that was serious about equal rights for blacks, we are now creating one that is serious about equal rights for gays and lesbians. Right here in Fayette County, we passed a fairness ordinance that is supposed to do just that, though how effective it is remains a mystery to me.
The evangelicals have a choice here. They can continue to preach against gays and lesbians, and be left out in the cold once again as they were on racial matters, or they can embrace the change and learn a little something from their past mistakes.
The ball's in their court.
The Bible forbids all sex outside of marriage, and defines marriage as monganomous and heterosexual. (Everybody knows this, even the libertines). And the only real reason to follow those strictures is because Jesus Christ was the Son of God. If Jesus wasn't God's Son, then He didn't rise from the grave, so eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.
That's all there is to it. Jesus was God's Son, He taught against sexual libertinism, He rose bodily from the grave, so that's what people should do. By calling for Christians to embrace immorality you call for Christians to abandon Christianity; don't be shocked when Christians won't do that.
I'm content to have been saved from progressivism. It's a blessing not to progress down into narcissism, sex addiction, abuse, disease, and death.
If people who consider themselves to be, and sometimes accurately so, outside "mainstream" Judaeo-Christianity would refrain from making broad, sweeping ignorant statements as Rosie O'Donnell has, there would be a much better chance of acceptance among those of us Christians who do not want to be judgmental, nor condemn others who are different in some way from us. She has discredited not only herself, but those whom she may have thought she was representing, or advocating for. If I were a part of the gay/lesbian community, I would much prefer that those like Rosie would keep their opinions to themselves; however, I am not, so maybe I do not understand the issue fully. In my opinion as a Catholic Christian, she is not representative of any group with members who are intelligent and sane, whether they are accepted by mainstream Christianity or not.