The Sound of Freedom

[bolverk 29397]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

See, that's your ignorance talking.  Christians lean Democrat 44% to 37% Republican.  The overall breakdown of all religions in America is shown in this chart (Pew Research):

 

Religion & politics (Pew Research)

 

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Hypersensitive?  When people allude to a 90/10 breakdown of a demographic that's 37/44?  

I don't think so.  It's a constant beating.  Maybe that makes me hypersensitive.  I guess.

 

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but I also think decent, rational people should be a bit more aware of the actual demographic and stop being so hysterically overreactive.

 

Where are you getting the 37/44 split for Christians? The chart you've provided shows that split for Catholics, and it doesn't reflect Evangelicals or even boring old Mainline Protestants. And it certainly isn't the case for Mormons, whom many would argue aren't "real" Christians.

Wanting to see what I might be missing, I clicked the link and found another 37/44 split in the topline chart but was it for ALL ADULTS, irrespective of religious beliefs.

 

If you're going to get in a tizzy about other people's "ignorance" regarding demographics, you might want to look a little more carefully at your data (from 2014 btw). If I'm somehow missing something from the source you've provided, I apologize in advance.

[Blotto 23428]

14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

 

 

Where are you getting the 37/44 split for Christians? The chart you've provided shows that split for Catholics, and it doesn't reflect Evangelicals or even boring old Mainline Protestants. And it certainly isn't the case for Mormons, whom many would argue aren't "real" Christians.

Wanting to see what I might be missing, I clicked the link and found another 37/44 split in the topline chart but was it for ALL ADULTS, irrespective of religious beliefs.

 

If you're going to get in a tizzy about other people's "ignorance" regarding demographics, you might want to look a little more carefully at your data (from 2014 btw). If I'm somehow missing something from the source you've provided, I apologize in advance.

Yeah JJ's claim immediately struck me as way f'n off, so I checked the same page. Without knowledge of the sample sizes involved for each bucket, its impossible to derive what the percentages would be for "all christians"  but I'd be fucking shocked if wasnt skewed towards republican by a non trivial amount. 

Edit - here's another article discussing Pew Research and religion/voting

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/30/most-white-americans-who-regularly-attend-worship-services-voted-for-trump-in-2020/

Quote

Overall, 59% of voters who frequently attend religious services cast their ballot for Trump, while 40% chose Biden. Among those who attend services a few times a year or less, the pattern was almost exactly reversed: 58% picked Biden, while 40% voted for Trump.

However, these patterns vary by race. Frequent religious service attenders’ preference for Trump was apparent among White voters but largely absent among Black voters. (Due to limitations in sample size, results among Hispanic and Asian Americans could not be analyzed separately.)

About seven-in-ten White, non-Hispanic Americans who attend religious services at least monthly (71%) voted for Trump, while roughly a quarter (27%) voted for Biden. Among White Americans who attend religious services a few times a year or less, far fewer voted for Trump (46%), while around half (52%) voted for Biden.

In general, at least for whites, the more religious you are, it appears the more likely you will be to vote republican. And the country as a whole likely follows that pattern although not as convincingly as just the white(non-hispanic) demographic. My statement of course assumes that people who attend church more frequently are more religious than those who attend infrequently. That seems like a sound assumption, but as I avoid churches like the f'n plague, I have no recent first hand experience to validate it. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by Blotto

[Nivek 16853]

16 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Yeah JJ's claim immediately struck me as way f'n off, so I checked the same page. Without knowledge of the sample sizes involved for each bucket, its impossible to derive what the percentages would be for "all christians"  but I'd be fucking shocked if wasnt skewed towards republican by a non trivial amount. 

Edit - here's another article discussing Pew Research and religion/voting

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/30/most-white-americans-who-regularly-attend-worship-services-voted-for-trump-in-2020/

In general, at least for whites, the more religious you are, it appears the more likely you will be to vote republican. And the country as a whole likely follows that pattern although not as convincingly as just the white(non-hispanic) demographic. My statement of course assumes that people who attend church more frequently are more religious than those who attend infrequently. That seems like a sound assumption, but as I avoid churches like the f'n plague, I have no recent first hand experience to validate it. 

In Jimmy's defense here,  I don't think I agree with the underlined portion.  How does one define more religious?  Do they pray harder?  

[bolverk 29397]

15 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Yeah JJ's claim immediately struck me as way f'n off, so I checked the same page. Without knowledge of the sample sizes involved for each bucket, its impossible to derive what the percentages would be for "all christians"  but I'd be fucking shocked if wasnt skewed towards republican by a non trivial amount. 

I got you fam. If you click on the "table" tab above the chart he provided, you get the percentages along with the sample sizes. 

Quick results below for Christians w/o Mormons included (yellow shading) and Christians w/ Mormons included (orange shading).

According to the survey, which I believe is from 2014, 43-44 percent of Christians were Republicans or leaned that way 9 years ago, while 39-40 percent of them were Democrats or Democratic leaners.

[Blotto 23428]

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

In Jimmy's defense here,  I don't think I agree with the underlined portion.  How does one define more religious?  Do they pray harder?  

And that was my statement not Pew's. For instance, I know a few people that have told me that they really dont believe in God/Jesus,  but they still attend church a few times a year because their spouse is a believer and its the holidays, or their kids are in choir etc... I dont know anyone that attends church weekly that claims they don't believe in God. Maybe religious belief is as  simple as binary yes/no and frequency of attendance at worship services has no bearing.

I've just always assumed that the people that attend every week, and put stupid fucking religious statements in their work email signatures, and thank Jesus for trivial shit like a 30% off sale at Macy's are "more religious" than some dude who goes once a year on Christmas eve because he doesn't want to piss off the wife. 

 

[atomheartbevo 89409]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Beyond that, though, my main beef with this whole thing is the broad brush used to paint "religious folks".  Plenty, and I mean PLENTY of Christians are against religion in school,

And those that I know that are in favor of the whole "more God in schools!", I gently (or loudly) remind them, at least those in Texas, that we are in a state where Catholics are the largest group and if they want little Kayden and Jaiden to go to school and hear the teachings of the Vatican, they can just stick them in a private Catholic school, but by God I want my kids free from that!

 It does make some of them think - some will argue that it doesn't have to mean Catholic versions, but I ask them if they seriously want the government teaching their kids religion and just how religious are they if they don't do it at home or have them in a good church.

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

shaming of non-believers, the silly myth of creationism, etc.,

Yep, plenty of Christians I know don't have problems with their kids going through the dinosaur phase.

 

[bolverk 29397]

16 minutes ago, Blotto said:

And that was my statement not Pew's. For instance, I know a few people that have told me that they really dont believe in God/Jesus,  but they still attend church a few times a year because their spouse is a believer and its the holidays, or their kids are in choir etc... I dont know anyone that attends church weekly that claims they don't believe in God. Maybe religious belief is as  simple as binary yes/no and frequency of attendance at worship services has no bearing.

I've just always assumed that the people that attend every week, and put stupid fucking religious statements in their work email signatures, and thank Jesus for trivial shit like a 30% off sale at Macy's are "more religious" than some dude who goes once a year on Christmas eve because he doesn't want to piss off the wife. 

 

 

Using the same data in the table above, I did one other quick table showing the share that each "religious tradition" had for Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. It shows that "Christians" are the majority in each, but that the GOP is dominated by them (84%), white Protestants specifically.

The Democrats have a much more diverse background, with no specific group comprising a majority. Even including Black Protestants, the Protestant share is only about 43%. But the single largest group are heathens, much like myself. Still, we irreligious folks can't piss off the Christians, as they're 2/3rds of our voters (or were in 2014).

 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Yeah, you're right, it appears I misread that table.  I should have been more careful, I was posting and running and while the breakdown was the point of my original search, those big buckets stood out.  I should have ignored them.  My bad.

Regardless, I think the overall point still stands -- a significant faction of Christians do NOT associate with the general broad brush that is reflective of mostly evangelicals, Mormons, and some Catholics.

When someone castigates my upbringing for "believing Genesis 1:1" hurr durr durr I'm kinda inclined to fight back, and justifiably so. 

[bolverk 29397]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, you're right, it appears I misread that table.  I should have been more careful, I was posting and running and while the breakdown was the point of my original search, those big buckets stood out.  I should have ignored them.  My bad.

Regardless, I think the overall point still stands -- a significant faction of Christians do NOT associate with the general broad brush that is reflective of mostly evangelicals, Mormons, and some Catholics.

When someone castigates my upbringing for "believing Genesis 1:1" hurr durr durr I'm kinda inclined to fight back, and justifiably so. 

 

As I've said before, I grew up Southern Baptist, but because of the aggressively anti-Enlightenment nature of that particular religious group, I'm not especially defensive when someone wants to come down hard on Evangelicals. In general, though, I'm not a fan of shitting on people's religions in spite of no longer being a believer.

ETA: Here's a more recent survey from Gallup which basically reflects the one from Pew, concerning the broad religious groups that make up the two main parties.

Edited December 18, 2023 by bolverk

[956 Worldwide 34422]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

who knew Jehovah's Witnesses were so libruhl. also, color me surprised catholics are pretty split.

JWs are not supposed to vote or run for office or serve in the military or have anything to do with politics.  I’d imagine the”lean D” number is tied to the diversity of the JWs. 

[Brisketexan 104561]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

As I've said before, I grew up Southern Baptist, but because of the aggressively anti-Enlightenment nature of that particular religious group, I'm not especially defensive when someone wants to come down hard on Evangelicals. In general, though, I'm not a fan of shitting on people's religions in spite of no longer being a believer.

ETA: Here's a more recent survey from Gallup which basically reflects the one from Pew, concerning the broad religious groups that make up the two main parties.

The encouraging thing there is that "nones and dones" is the fastest-growing "religious" group in the US.  And they go Dem at like 2.5 to 1 ratio.

['stache 21764]

Okay, so we're not supposed to judge all "Christians" based on the alleged "bad" ones. But as far as I can tell, the "bad" ones, if you want to go that direction, are the ones dominating several state legislatures and passing laws that deprive people of rights based on the lawmakers' religions beliefs. Members of the US Congress regularly propose this crap too. Trump has well-established preachers giving political speeches for him at his rallies and in their churches. That tends to far outweigh peoples' perception than people who practice their religion by serving at soup kitchens and being genuinely nice to other people. Also, the mainstream religions rarely push back, which is tips to scales for me that on the whole, the bad far, far, far, far, far outweighs the good, at least by way of perception (several cardinals for example said that Biden should be denied communion for his support of abortion rights, but I haven't seen a single republican lawmaker denied the same for supporting capital punishment, or you know, being openly bigoted hateful fascist sacks of human garbage). Finally, to the extent many Christians are generally good people, to me, that's the baseline of human behavior regardless of religion, so I don't credit their goodness with their religion. Whereas, the ones being hateful and passing laws openly state it's based on their religion convictions. Maybe they'd be bad people without religion, but the fact that they use it to justify their horrendous behavior stands out more than vice versa. The goddamned Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, second in line to an octogenarian president, is this exact person. To me, that's the overriding problem, and why the so-called "bad ones" drive perception, rightfully so in my opinion.

Edited December 18, 2023 by 'stache

[bolverk 29397]

47 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Okay, so we're not supposed to judge all "Christians" based on the alleged "bad" ones. But as far as I can tell, the "bad" ones, if you want to go that direction, are the ones dominating several state legislatures and passing laws that deprive people of rights based on the lawmakers' religions beliefs. Members of the US Congress regularly propose this crap too. Trump has well-established preachers giving political speeches for him at his rallies and in their churches. That tends to far outweigh peoples' perception than people who practice their religion by serving at soup kitchens and being genuinely nice to other people. Also, the mainstream religions rarely push back, which is tips to scales for me that on the whole, the bad far, far, far, far, far outweighs the good, at least by way of perception (several cardinals for example said that Biden should be denied communion for his support of abortion rights, but I haven't seen a single republican lawmaker denied the same for supporting capital punishment, or you know, being openly bigoted hateful fascist sacks of human garbage). Finally, to the extent many Christians are generally good people, to me, that's the baseline of human behavior regardless of religion, so I don't credit their goodness with their religion. Whereas, the ones being hateful and passing laws openly state it's based on their religion convictions. Maybe they'd be bad people without religion, but the fact that they use it to justify their horrendous behavior stands out more than vice versa. The goddamned Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, second in line to an octogenarian president, is this exact person. To me, that's the overriding problem, and why the so-called "bad ones" drive perception, rightfully so in my opinion.

I agree with a lot of this but tend to think the really bad shit is mostly the Evangelicals and the hardcore Catholics (the ones mostly concerned with abortion and who want mass in Latin or whatever).

[jimmyjazz 45546]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Also, the mainstream religions rarely push back, 

There isn't some overriding governing body that can levy sanctions against those who weaponize Christianity.  People can (and do) speak out against a great deal of the bad behavior you reference, even from the pulpit, but there is no penalty clause.  The evangelical right simply does not care.

[chainsaw 9837]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[Chewbacca 7729]

6 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Hypersensitive?  When people allude to a 90/10 breakdown of a demographic that's 37/44?  

I don't think so.  It's a constant beating.  Maybe that makes me hypersensitive.  I guess.

Catholic is 37/44 (and I'm not sure I buy that).  Evangelical is 56/28 towards Republicans.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

2 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Evangelical is 56/28 towards Republicans.

I'm surprised it's that balanced.

[Chewbacca 7729]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm surprised it's that balanced.

Honestly, so am I.  I would have expected 80%+ R.

[bolverk 29397]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm surprised it's that balanced.

 

13 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Honestly, so am I.  I would have expected 80%+ R.

I was too. One part of it *might* be how many Hispanics have left the Catholic Church and joined those Hispanic Evangelical churches like "Agape something or 'nuther" or moved over to non-denominational places (but still Evangelical). At least, that's pretty common in Texas, but I realize this is a national survey.

Then you also sometimes come across the stray Baptist, like my former neighbors, who are quietly Democratic. I think my uncle/aunt and cousins' Church of Christ family are all too, but I've never asked. One of the cousins is even a *gasp* lesbian.

So, yeah, there are some, but that share does seem high.

[wildcat09 29226]

26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

There isn't some overriding governing body that can levy sanctions against those who weaponize Christianity.  People can (and do) speak out against a great deal of the bad behavior you reference, even from the pulpit, but there is no penalty clause.  The evangelical right simply does not care.

Jimmy, the simple fact is that if the fundamentalist Christians were only a smallish minority of all Christians in America, and if most other Christians in America staunchly opposed their actions and their beliefs, the fundamentalists wouldn't have as much if not more political power than any other demographic group in America. The truth of the matter, though, is that there's shitloads of them and while they may not be a majority of American Christians, they're not that far from being the majority, and the rest of American Christians do not staunchly oppose them enough to actually organize against them. Many do, particularly black protestant churches. But most mainstream white churches don't, because there are a whole lot of upper-middle class to upper class white Republicans in mainstream white churches who don't want their preachers speaking out against the Republican party.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Jimmy, the simple fact is that if the fundamentalist Christians were only a smallish minority of all Christians in America, and if most other Christians in America staunchly opposed their actions and their beliefs, the fundamentalists wouldn't have as much if not more political power than any other demographic group in America. The truth of the matter, though, is that there's shitloads of them and while they may not be a majority of American Christians, they're not that far from being the majority, and the rest of American Christians do not staunchly oppose them enough to actually organize against them. Many do, particularly black protestant churches. But most mainstream white churches don't, because there are a whole lot of upper-middle class to upper class white Republicans in mainstream white churches who don't want their preachers speaking out against the Republican party.

I don't disagree with that.  "Mainline" Protestants aren't as homogenous as evangelicals.  That fracture just further enables the bad guys.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Jimmy, the simple fact is that if the fundamentalist Christians were only a smallish minority of all Christians in America, and if most other Christians in America staunchly opposed their actions and their beliefs, the fundamentalists wouldn't have as much if not more political power than any other demographic group in America. The truth of the matter, though, is that there's shitloads of them and while they may not be a majority of American Christians, they're not that far from being the majority, and the rest of American Christians do not staunchly oppose them enough to actually organize against them. Many do, particularly black protestant churches. But most mainstream white churches don't, because there are a whole lot of upper-middle class to upper class white Republicans in mainstream white churches who don't want their preachers speaking out against the Republican party.

Well, I attend an upper middle class church and have never heard the minister delve into politics either way in 50 some-odd years of attendance.  Most ministers of mainline churches speak in generalities of "love your neighbor," not "love the convicted felon or misguided republican."

One of the conundrums here is that "real" Christians are supposed to love their enemies.  That doesn't mean endorse them or condone them, but the notion of saying "I'm a good Methodist and I oppose Donald Trump and all the fundagelical morons that support him, as well as fundagelicals generally," is not really something most mainline churches are going to do.

I think, ultimately, most responsible Christian clergy stay the hell out of politics.  That separation of church and state thing runs two directions, really.

[wildcat09 29226]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, I attend an upper middle class church and have never heard the minister delve into politics either way in 50 some-odd years of attendance.  Most ministers of mainline churches speak in generalities of "love your neighbor," not "love the convicted felon or misguided republican."

One of the conundrums here is that "real" Christians are supposed to love their enemies.  That doesn't mean endorse them or condone them, but the notion of saying "I'm a good Methodist and I oppose Donald Trump and all the fundagelical morons that support him, as well as fundagelicals generally," is not really something most mainline churches are going to do.

I think, ultimately, most responsible Christian clergy stay the hell out of politics.  That separation of church and state thing runs two directions, really.

That sounds nice, in a mythical fantasy world where the other half of churches aren't pretty clearly encouraging their congregations to organize politically to turn America into a Christian theocracy and murder their enemies.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That sounds nice, in a mythical fantasy world where the other half of churches aren't pretty clearly encouraging their congregations to organize politically to turn America into a Christian theocracy and murder their enemies.

For the record, I think it's wrong to preach partisan politics and tax exemptions should be jeopardized as a result.

[CTC2 2743]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

I agree with a lot of this but tend to think the really bad shit is mostly the Evangelicals and the hardcore Catholics (the ones mostly concerned with abortion and who want mass in Latin or whatever).

Pretty much true. It’s why I no longer practice. I tell people all the time that I have no problem with God.  Just the people who think they know what God wants. 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For the record, I think it's wrong to preach partisan politics and tax exemptions should be jeopardized as a result.

Not a lawyer, but I thought the threat to tax exemption occurs when a church or church officers lobby for political candidates outside of the church proper.

[956 Worldwide 34422]

40 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not a lawyer, but I thought the threat to tax exemption occurs when a church or church officers lobby for political candidates outside of the church proper.

Churches cannot lobby as churches; and church officers aren’t to endorse political candidates at church or church functions. Pastors and church officers can endorse or lobby for candidates as individuals. 

[jimmyjazz 45546]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Churches cannot lobby as churches; and church officers aren’t to endorse political candidates at church or church functions. Pastors and church officers can endorse or lobby for candidates as individuals. 

It doesn't seem like this gets enforced, if true.

[956 Worldwide 34422]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

It doesn't seem like this gets enforced, if true.

The IRS has mostly abdicated on this in recent years, but that’s the law. 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

JFC this thread.  

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not a lawyer, but I thought the threat to tax exemption occurs when a church or church officers lobby for political candidates outside of the church proper.

Basically yes. To get that IRS classification they have to tell the government they aren’t doing political activities. The real question though is whether the IRS will actually enforce those regs against a church. I can’t think of any examples of that off the top of my head 

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

9 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

JFC

You said it man

[Captainant 27442]

9 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The IRS has mostly abdicated on this in recent years, but that’s the law. 

Ah, well, nevertheless

[G650 14086]

9 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

JFC this thread.  

Seriously

[Neonmoon 38127]

15 hours ago, bolverk said:

In general, though, I'm not a fan of shitting on people's religions in spite of no longer being a believer.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33834]

glad we cleared the religious debate up

[Celery Man 20882]

Now on prime! I’m tempted.

[Biff Tannen 45491]

12 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Now on prime! I’m tempted.

No.  You're not.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2786]

 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2786]

The Dems need Al Smith back to put the fucking Catholics back in line.

[G650 14086]

15 hours ago, Celery Man said:

Now on prime! I’m tempted.

Goddamn I saw the ad show up last night myself.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13410]

I selected the Not Interested option on Prime to get it to disappear and hopefully inform to keep the GQP fantasy shows away from my recommendations.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I selected the Not Interested option on Prime to get it to disappear and hopefully inform to keep the GQP fantasy shows away from my recommendations.

What is this, Pandora?

[bolverk 29397]

Interesting interview about American evangelicism with the author of “The Kingdom, the Power and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism.” It touches on how Trump's popularity is related to Prosperity Gospel; why they liked the "Sound of Freedom"; how they viewed the pandemic from an apocalyptic angle; and how they're so susceptible to being grifted. NYTimes says it's about a 12-minute read.

One sample of the Q&A:

Coaston: Something you get into later in the book are the contours of a generational divide within evangelical churches, on Trump, but also other issues. What does that divide look like?

Alberta: Kids, college students certainly, and these younger generations are much more socially aware, probably culturally more sensitive and just less given to zero-sum militarism around various disputes and debates.

It’s fascinating to see, mostly because the ideological differences between them and their parents are not all that vast. Many of these young people, if you went down the list and asked them about certain issues and how they would vote, there’s not some sharp divergence necessarily from their parents just on paper. But in their heart and in their speech and in their actions, there’s this dramatic generational course correction.

Even at a place like Liberty University, which has become sort of the avatar of evangelicalism’s moral corruption, you spend time there with students and you’re just consistently blown away by how many who are conservative theologically, conservative culturally, conservative politically want nothing to do with Trump, and they want nothing to do with MAGA, and they want nothing to do with Christian nationalism. They think about all of these things through a completely different lens. It really does come back to this idea of, do you view your faith through the prism of politics, or do you choose to view politics through the prism of your faith?

 

Full piece/no paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/opinion/tim-alberta-trump-evangelicals.html?mwgrp=c-dbar&unlocked_article_code=1.JE0.OejQ.ad1UgVVb-n1R&smid=url-share

[Bullneck 18987]

IIRC this has morphed into the Moms for Liberty thread, no?  Well, then:

[pyrohornIII 4809]

Only the finest kind of people.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13410]

When the grift doesn’t pay enough, they always resort to outright theft.

[speed817 19108]

Found this flyer sitting on a table at my church this morning 🙄

[Nivek 16853]

Find a better church.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?