Gallup Poll on Religious Bigotry

David Rothman aw605 at LAFN.ORG
Fri Jan 31 09:32:10 PST 1997


        But is this really bigotry?  One may have inferred from
        legitimate observations that some groups have a greater
        likelihood of producing noise, crime, or drug activity,
        or some other behavior one doesn't want, than others in
        the general population.  As long as I can't stop people
        from moving in based solely on the characteristics that
        were covered, I can't see the harm in private opinions.
>
>I thought members of this list might be interested in a Gallup Poll I
>recently discovered. The poll sheds light on the degree of religious
>bigotry that exists in our society. The poll sought to discover
>"Groups Not Wanted As Neighbors."  The following question was asked in
>the survey:
>
>"I am going to read you a list of various groups of people. As I read
>each one, please tell me whether you would or would not like to have
>them as neighbors."
>
>The results:
>
>Catholics: 94% Would, 3% Would Not
>
>Protestants: 92 % Would,  5% Would Not
>
>Jews: 91% Would,  5% Would Not
>
>Blacks: 83% Would,  12% Would Not
>
>Hispanics: 78% Would,  16% Would Not
>
>Unmarried People Living Together: 71% Would,  23% Would Not
>
>Religious Fundamentalists: 58% Would,  30% Would Not
>
>Members of Minority Religious Sects
>    or Cults:                       31% Would,  62% Would Not
>
>1989 Gallup Poll, p. 63-79.
>
>As I have argued in the past, the use of the label "fundamentalist"
>when used by the media (and in cases like Mozert) etc., is a label
>that stigmatizes those so labeled as dirty and unworthy. If people
>self-identify with that label, that's their choice. But when the term
>is used to label persons who don't claim it (such as when it is used
>to label, say, conservative Christians who would self-identify not as
>fundamentalists but as, say, Southern Baptists or Assembly of God), it
>is equivalent to a racial epithet.
>
>Also, this poll suggests that civil rights legislation like RFRA may
>be needed to protect "fundamentalists" and members of minority "sects"
>against a democratic process that may underprotect the religious
>freedom of these despised religious minorities.
>--
>                   ----------
>             Rick Duncan (rduncan at unlinfo.unl.edu)
>
>

--
Dave

David Rothman, 310-676-4032, FAX "
14125 Doty Avenue, #23, Hawthorne, CA 90250-8042



More information about the Religionlaw mailing list