The Cato Institute, originally named the Charles Koch Institute, was half owned by the Koch brothers until 2011, when a friend who was a quarter owner died. Then the Kochs decided they wanted more than half ownership. In years past some legitimate research was published there. But what little of what I have noted
lately qualifies as that.
This study has poor methodology. The worst flawed technique is claiming to surveyed actual values when only EXPRESSED values have been surveyed, and in a way proven to be flawed for over half a century. During the 1960's, it was noted and tested that if you told racist Southerners you were testing to let the rest of the nation know what they felt about race, the answers would suddenly become all brotherly love. This is what Ekins did for the Religious Right, and it defies reality.
2
Once the Christian Right gets their man on the Supreme Court will they suddenly get religion? Will their eyes be opened to the unchristian actions of the man they helped elect president?
6
When Christian conservatives speak of support for immigration, we mean legal, screened immigration.
2
Religious people were accustomed to presidents being quiet and never being angry, until this American President began campaigning.
However, the majority of American who are patriotic, religious capitalists knew FULL well how Trump speaks his mind BEFORE they elected him.
This progressive prayer of an essay is fervent enough but will never change reality. We never once said that we were electing a preacher or a daddy. We weanted an honest LEADER and he is the naswer to millions of prayers for our country.
OF course, the goofy, self-absorbed mismanagement of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton GAVE us Pres. Trump, so thanks are due to the New York Times.
Was it not MLK who noticed that “the most segregated hour in this nation” is Sunday at 11:00 am.
If churchgoers volunteer, but in different groups - black church and white church - then is their action not speaking of racial intolerance?
5
Going to church and being a moral person have absolutely no correlation. Statistically or otherwise.
Morality is based on equality, telling the truth, the golden rule, fairness, caring for those less fortunate, etc, etc, etc.
You cannot find a group of people more antithetic to those ideals than Donald Trump, Fox News, the GOP, and their supporters. The whole lot of them are as morally bankrupt as one can get.
Heck, Trump and the GOP even whole-heartedly supported a credibly accused pedophile for the Senate. And now, the Evangelicals want to seat a man on the Supreme Court, completely irrespective of whether or not he tried to rape someone in his teens. That's the measure of their ethics.
The only thing that really matters to these people is power for powers sake alone, and bending people to their will - no matter how morally vacuous and degenerate that will might be.
14
Religious piety as an oxymoron:
They voted for a man/child whose entire biography demonstrates his grifter crookedness - intimidation and bullying - exploitation of the weak and powerless - serial mysogeny - racism psychopathic narcissism -sociopathy - compulsive lying and disemmbling the truth AND a lack of substantial intellect -disrespect for facts and science and deep learning - ALONG with a complete vacuum of spirituality on any level.
Jesus is crying!
6
It seems that this study that Ekins found defines "secular" as not going to church. That doesn't make much sense, and seems to only be an attempt to insist that Christians really aren't as bad as they are voting for Trump, their lovely anti-christ that they have no problem with. It's just those "other" Christians who are sullying the name and horrors, they don't go to church! Not buying it.
6
Churches in this day and age are political organizations. They have trampled the separation wall between church and state in this country. Their tax exempt status needs to be revoked.
7
Generally people vote their emotions. The emotional trigger may vary but emotions rule the voting booth.
It seems that the emotion of the time is revenge. It is less important that my team wins, than your team loses and the loss huge and painful. Revenge for perceived wrongs that have to be blamed on somebody.
When there are actual issues they can be discussed, debated, compromise can happen. When rage takes over, it is all-in and as long as you get hurt more than I get hurt I feel like I won - a loss can feel like a win even when everyone loses. We widen the divide and reject any idea of common ground.
We-the-People survived a lot, wars, civil wars, racism, riots, purges, but somehow always acknowledged that we are one nation. Today the idea that sharing the planet with someone you disagree with is sufficient to burn it all down. Franklin was right - "... if we can keep it."
5
This “lefty” doesn’t want so called “values voters” to leave the church; I just want them to live up to the values they claim to espouse.
Perhaps finding a church community that reflects and lives out love for neighbor would help.
3
Nice try Ms. Ekins. I prefer to believe my eyes and ears. Your polling definitions and questions leave holes big enough to drive pickups with gun racks and bibles through.
Trump supporters, religious or not, are not moderate in any sense of that word.
10
The problem is that religious conservatives and secular conservatives make common cause with eac other, and in so doing, enable the worst of each group's agenda.
9
... but all the seem to care about in a politician is abortion so as far as electing people who will make rules about these "soft spots" it's meaningless?
2
Let's cut to the chase. The survey are nice, and the answers are all warm and fuzzy, but if the Christian Trump supporters really believed in the things covered in this piece, they never would have voted for, and would not now support, Trump.
6
Church- attendees are more moderate than secular Trump voters, but they are still far below the threshold to qualify as having humanity.
They're still trump voters in the end. Being covered in LESS faeces doesn't make you clean.
6
"Churchgoing Trump voters care far more than nonreligious ones about racial equality (67 percent versus 49 percent) and reducing poverty (42 percent versus 23 percent). "
So, 58% percent of Evangelicals don't care about reducing poverty? And this is proof of what exactly?
3
Most of the letters show a disdain for science. The polls show what many people like me have observed first hand: Church-attending evangelicals are deeply uncomfortable with Trump and oppose him on many issues. The letters show a common fallacy produced by widely-trumpeted but misleading statistics claiming that a large majority of “evangelicals” supported Trump for president. However the definition used by those pollsters did not inquire whether the “evangelical” voters in question actually attend church. What the question instead asked was whether the voter had experienced a religious conversion, which a large segment of people living in the Bible belt claim, even though many do not attend any church at all. The correlation is cultural not religious. I expect one could find the same correlation between identity as SEC football fans and Trump voters; but as far as I know no one blames SEC football for Trump’s election.
The worst thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party was its reaction to Roe v. Wade. Millions of voters who object to abortion felt forced into supporting anti-abortion politicians, even although the Republicans are not really interested in that issue. They have cynically used it to disguise their real agenda, which is to support large business interests and the wealthy. Single issue voters who oppose abortion are simply making the best of bad choices.
3
The religious right voters will still go into the voting booth and vote for everyone with an "R" after their name even if they don't agree with them on immigration, race and identity. They do agree with them on subjugation of women (Ephesians 5) , and bankrupting the country in order to give tax cuts to the rich (the opposite of Jesus's teaching), then there is Social Security and Medicare. They seem to favor candidates that want to eliminate that in order to - give more tax cuts to the rich. The term "liberal" and religious right hardly belong in the same sentence.
7
I think it's a inaccurate to call trump supporting social conservatives who don't attend church "secular" or "Non-religious." These people may not attend church, and their beliefs and behavior may not have much in common with Christ's actual teachings, but they definitely consider themselves conservative Christians.
5
"Churchgoing Trump voters care far more than nonreligious ones about racial equality (67 percent versus 49 percent) and reducing poverty (42 percent versus 23 percent)."
Wow, ONLY three in five religious Republicans are happy to ignore the plight of the poor, compared to three in four non-religious Republicans. How very Christian of them.
11
I vote GOP purely for their pro-life platform. If they drop that platform, they will lose my vote. I prioritize the matter over my views on labor, foreign conflict, and the social safety net, all of which square pretty firmly with the Berniecrats.
I hate the situation I'm in, but my conscience leaves me with little choice. I've had to hold my nose for some truly unpleasant candidates that otherwise said they were pro-life, versus a candidate that was wholeheartedly pro-choice.
1
@T. Warren there is no such thing as pro-life. There is anti-women & anti-choice. You don’t care about life. You just care about looking like you care about life. When you and your compadres are willing to not only stop abortion but also provide for all children regardless of race, ethnic background or sexual orientation then we can have a discussion.
10
Don’t support abortion? Don’t have one. You do not have the right to force that choice on my wife. My daughters. Or any other individual.
7
How about if you voted for candidates that would support your other priorities and also work to make abortion rare by providing effective sex education and easy access to birth control? You need to face the fact that abortion will NEVER go away, even if it is illegal. I would think that your conscience would drive you towards supporting women to avoid unplanned pregnancies and the danger of back alley abortions (what about the sanctity of these women’s lives?) which will most assuredly return if Roe v Wade is overturned. If you vote for “pro-life” candidates, the deaths of desperate women will be partly your fault. Let THAT sit on your conscience for a while.
8
Of course the same religious conservatives who would deny reproductive freedom to over half the US population want to see that same population explode via permissive immigration policies. Religious conservatives, whether they know it or not, are the enemy of the environment. Human overpopulation and conservation of our natural resources and open spaces are utterly incompatible.
9
Basic human right: believe what you want as long as you don't impose it on others. Whether this essay is "right" or "left" or correct or incorrect, is not as important as comprehending that no religious group should be attempting to impose its beliefs on others. Too many people have been killed and cultures destroyed because of that--that one belief is better than another.
If people who are "evangelical" (whatever that means) want to vote for a liberal, progressive, fascist or authoritarian or whomever, that is their right as long as they don't try to force others to do the same.
Full disclosure: I am not christian and christians have often tried to oppress me with their unusual belief system. I am not nor will I ever be interested in that belief system. But I do not try to stop them. Even when they try to impose their belief system on me. Going door to door is bad enough but when christians get involved overtly in politics, it goes without saying that trouble is brewing. Stay out of politics christians and focus on your beliefs. Don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Don't believe that stores should be open on Sundays, don't go to the store, In essence don't deny anyone anything because YOU don't believe in it. Manage your house and don't impose your rather strange beliefs on others.
12
"...many incorrectly assume that if conservative churchgoers are less accepting of sexual minorities, they are also less accepting of racial and religious minorities. This may help explain why a majority (56 percent) of Democrats today have outright negative views of evangelical Christians,...".
Actually my outright negative view of Evangelical Christians stems from my repeated experience of having them seem to befriend me, when all they really want to do is "save" me from my atheistic ways. They quickly stopped being my friends the moment they realize my beliefs are just as firm as theirs. The difference, of course, is that I'm not trying to dissuade them from their beliefs, but offensively they feel it is their moral duty to proselytize and pray for the salvation they perceive is necessary to "help" me and others like me.
When Evangelical Christians face up to the actual truth that they don't have a monopoly on the "truth" of belief, and when they accept others' beliefs as equally valid as their and not in need of correction, well then maybe we can try and be friends again, and my negative opinion will improve. I won't hold my breath.
14
Ross Douthat introduced this theme in an earlier opinion:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/15/opinion/sunday/conservatism-after-chr...
I can gripe more about the methodology but I'm more concerned about the conclusions at this point. I wouldn't have noticed except Ekins makes repeated references to Mormons.
Disclaimer: I am not Mormon nor am I an expert in their faith. However, I happen to live and work around a lot of them. As a result, I've taken time to read a book or two on the subject. I compare notes with my own experiences.
The first thing you need to understand about Mormonism is the religion was designed as a self-governing theocratic state. At their foundation, Mormons are quite literally New World Christian Zionists. They even declared their own state roughly the size of Texas. It took the US Army to prevent Mormons from annexing most of the inter-mountain West.
On a more human level, Mormons are not a homogeneous group. I'll remind you Trump did not win a majority in Utah. In my experience, Mormons fall into one of three categories. The enthusiastic observer, the reluctant observer, or the jack-Mormon. These are Mormons who left the church on principled grounds. Gender and sexuality are the most common complaints but imperialism, neocolonialism, corporatism, coffee, and alcohol are not uncommon. I'd just like to highlight how the differences don't fit easily into a survey questionnaire. There's good reason to doubt vast generalizations on community
7
Remember when Franklin Graham said progressive was another word for godless? Non-church Conservatives are then, godless Conservatives?
3
I like how this article appears on the front page (website) along with an article about how the Religious Right is demanding the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh in the face of a credible sexual assault accusation. Right-wing hypocrisy is a thrice-told tale, but that's because it's very much a thing.
14
@Sean
What “front page”?! All I can see now of the front page on my iPhone is half of Putin’s head and it’s been there since the middle of the night when I first checked in after a month of traveling.
This new redesign that forces iPhone subscribers into a scrolling curated list, instead a traditional layout that offers up to 30 stories in one window, is so bad, I’m starting to go elsewhere for up to the minute headlines across a broad range of topics, instead of those forced upon me by a staff that refuses to allow its subscribers to access the same page as a computer does. And I’ve complained via email and phone repeatedly but to no avail.
"Churchgoing Trump voters care far more than nonreligious ones..."
Pretty low bar, yes?
The Religious Right is neither.
They have no governing philosophy, and they long ago abandoned the tenets of any recognized religion for the sake of expediency and access to power.
Still, maybe you could educate us.
Where in the Bible is the part where Jesus says, "Go, punish those you disagree with to the ends of the earth. By the way, its true, you are the only human beings ever in all of history who know what me and God are thinking, and you have our permission to punish any body for any thing in any way you please. Especially gay people. And immigrants. Oh, I forgot, and the poor. Especially the poor."?
I blieve I can use this as the case study for my lecture on "false equivelence and other fallacies". Thank you; its brilliant.
8
The constant issue that overrides all other issues for Evangelical Trump voting Christians (is that an oxymoron?) is that they are anti-sex. No, not just anti-abortion but anti-birth control as well. They believe that sex should only happen inside of marriage and mainly for the purpose of pro-creation, pro-creation, pro-creation. Enjoyment of sex outside of this purpose needs to be forbidden. They also believe that libertine women should face the consequences of their act and that in most cases, when a women is raped by a male it's because they did something, like go to a party where males were drinking, or dressed in a provocative way in which they asked for it. Now they may have kindler and gentler attitudes towards people of other races and immigrants because of their link to community but what drives their vote is their obsession with sex. Overturning Roe v. Wade and getting rid of birth control is their lodestar and if Trump can deliver them a Supreme Court that will do it he could be the devil himself and they'll still support him.
8
And yet, these moderate religious people still voted for Trump. It’s almost like their secret way of shoving a shiv into those that the Trump administration harms on a daily basis.
2
Right, and if you're a woman who wants control of your own body, or if you're not 100% heterosexual, you're a doomed-to-hell aberration.
6
If evangelicals want to send a message in support of the poor, the needy, the tired, the sick and the young then quit voting for conservative Republicans. Their bargain with the devil has given us Trump, the most vile, venal, corrupt and immoral man to ever hold the office he defiles daily. A deep and prayerful reflection on the teachings of Jesus would inevitably lead them away from the blasphemy of present day Republicans and into the light of love and compassion. If only it was so..........
11
More or less what you might expect from a Koch brothers employee. You really have to love the twisted "logic"; of all Trump supporters, the religionists are the ones who are the most "liberal" when it comes to race, immigration, etc. I guess this means that they'd be somewhat less likely to join neo-Nazi groups.
Which begs the obvious question: if you "care about racial equality or reducing poverty", why vote for the party that has been deliberately waging war on minority voting? Why vote for the party that tries to punish the poor at every opportunity--because of the "bad choices" they make?
We all know--"fetus rights"--rights which must be surrendered at birth.
3
The GOP has held the religious in our society hostage since the Reagan administration due to abortion. Democrats refuse to change their stance and soften their message on abortion. Thus, evangelicals vote Republican against their economic needs and no matter the candidate. My sister-in-law yelled at my wife the other day at the mere idea of voting Democrat because they "are pro-abortion." Of course, that is patently false, but the idea is there. Dems need to fix that vision.
3
@Anthony
No, the Dems need to bury their deplorable opponents at the ballot box.
3
@Anthony
No, Dems don’t “need to fix that vision”. It’s Christians who need to fix their sex obsession that taints their connection to reality. That’s not our problem, why is it us who needs to do the fixing? We’re not the ones trying to control others or force our religion onto others.
6
It would be easy to get quite biblical about the intolerance of the Trump administration and its hand-picked destroyers, and their enablers running the Republican party on behalf of the wealthy and powerful, throwing stewardship and compassion to the winds.
Try the Gospels. The Sermon on the Mount, perhaps? I always heard pride was the greatest sin. Exclusion. Judging. Greed. How exactly are living people, babies, mothers, families, the less fortunate, people of other races or religions, less valuable than fetuses? So less valuable that nothing else matters. Why is this unchristian practice put at the center of so-called evangelicals. Where is equating the state with spirituality in Jesus's teachings, or the Constitution.
Whited sepulchers, moneychangers in the temple, casters of first stones, hoarders, looters, destroyers of the garden, how is that Christian?
When I gave my heart and soul to christianity, it is people like these that made me wonder if there is a god. Sophistry is not the answer. Wealth is not a marker of virtue, it is a marker of success, all too often, these days, gained by taking from those who have less to give to those who have more.
Look around you. Do you regard looting and exploitation and toxic waste as god's work?
If we are made in the image of god, what makes you more worthy? To me that would be community, working together to solve problems, the golden rule, loving your neighbor as yourself.
8
The bible defines life as "first breath to last." How is opposition abortion justified by so called fundamentalists?
4
I have to admit I admire the courage of the NYT Op Ed editor. After running Ross Douthat's hilarious column that drew from the same Cato survey, the Times now gives space to the manger of that Cato survey to repeat the same ludicrous arguments; to wit:
Church-going conservatives are less bigoted than secular conservatives. The evidence for this? Not their behavior, or their policies, or their voting habits--which demonstrate unstoppbable & ever-increasing hostility to blacks, Latinos, gays and noisy women--but the hypocritical answers they gave to the Cato pollsters.
I realize that every publication in the US that tilts even marginally "left" feels compelled to endlessly pander to right-wingers, but let me promise this to the editors at the NYT:
Church-going conservatives are just as ready to ban abortion & birth control, block minorities from voting, and purge every brown-skinned immigrant as their secular brethren. Don't ask them, just watch them.
12
The evil of the Trump Evangical plutocracy
4
They voted for Trump. They are complicit in the evils his administration is fomenting, socially, environmentally, financially, internationally. I don't care that that some of these self-described "Christians" have "warm feelings" towards minorities, or any of the other blather reported in this essay. They voted for Trump. How they can think that their souls will not rot in hell for this, I cannot understand. (I personally don't have a soul, so I believe in the humanistic agenda of those self-described as "liberals" and I vote accordingly. I will never be complicit in Trumps' turning America into an intolerant theocracy circa 1600.)
5
"More moderate" than the alt-right does not equal "liberal." And maybe they are only "more moderate" in expressing their views.
3
For some people, believing that one or more gods exist may make it easier to be ethical. For other people, I’m sure it does not. I and many of my friends and family members are atheists or agnostics. And the atheists and agnostics I know well are, on average, at least as ethical as the theists that I know well. And some of the countries with the highest percentages of atheists and agnostics have some of the highest percentages of ethical actions (for instance, the Scandinavian countries).
However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that, for most people, being an atheist or agnostic makes it harder to be ethical than being a theist does. That is, of course, irrelevant to whether one or more gods are likely to exist. Analogously, suppose that one’s believing that the earth revolves around the sun tends to make it harder for most people to be ethical than believing the opposite. I’m still quite sure that the earth revolves around the sun.
1
Can anyone tell me why I should continue to respect self-proclaimed "Christians" who embrace Trump, rationalize his serial adultery, his lying, his race-baiting, his financial dishonesty? How can "religious leaders" stand with this man, embrace him and hold hands with him, all with eyes pressed hard shut in "solidarity and prayer" for the benefit of photographers? Some claim that's because they're just brimming over with Christian forgiveness, and that they believe Trump when he tells them he's a religious kind of guy, deep down, sort of, in a way, or something. Given that to be a Christian fundamentalist you must believe in a bunch of fairy tales about a heaven, a hell, Jesus's immaculate conception and miraculous resurrection, and all the rest -- claptrap created many centuries ago to attract pagans to the faith -- perhaps it's no wonder phony Christians claim to "believe" in Trump. For me, after many years of having to suffer the sanctimonious hypocrisies of true believers, while watching them constantly meddle with the lives of all others, the Religious Right's support of Trump -- who is a living daily repudiation of the Ten Commandments -- has erased any respect I might have reserved for them. You're either a true Christian or you're a Trump chump. "Forgiveness" doesn't cut it.
8
Many not interested in the conclusions here as they hold a strong bias that people that believe in religion are basically deluded, biased, and out to spread their ignorant ways. That is where the Dem party has been heading. And, while I'm not religious, I find it appalling. It seems the far left is especially anti-Christian. Not sure why, except that they don't like hearing that the country was founded by those fleeing christian persecution. But the DNC convention heard boos when they proposed putting God back into their mission statement after it was removed before the 2012 convention. That said it all. The fact is that there are biased people in this country; most have a bias of some kind based on experience, upbringing, or both. And the progressives are very much included. To claim that Republicans are racist is as bad as saying Democrats are godless. Neither is true, but again, the comments make it seem otherwise.
1
Oh good, church going Trump voters care about reducing poverty probably by bringing taxes on the rich to zero. Then poverty will be eliminated. Ok, got it.
8
Sorry but I don't believe any of this, It is either fake news or these evangelicals caught in more lies. Ralph Reed came out this morning making threats if the Senate did not ram through the Kavanaugh appointment to the Supreme Court. Evangelicals having something in common wit the left, really? I don't think so.They voted for trump an immoral blatant racist, a man who has an strong anti-immigrant stance and is anti-Muslim except for his buds the Saudis who flatter him.
10
Cato is funded by the Kochs and their ilk. For years they’ve been fighting to end taxes on the rich and saying that churches should help the poor. How convenient that Ms. Ekins’ polling should find the religious so sympathetic to the poor and disadvantaged. We need only take the next logical step and let the rich off the hook.
NYT and other “liberal” outlets have been shamed or bullied into including conservative columnists and viewpoints like this one by Cato. Right wing publications rarely feel the need to reciprocate.
11
They voted for Trump. Everything else is just talk.
10
This is an interesting new angle that we've heard twice this week. Once here and once from Ross Douthat.
Christian conservatives aren't nearly as bad as non-Christian conservatives.
Alrighty then.
10
"Conservatives who attend church have more moderate views than secular conservatives on issues like race, immigration and identity."
No thanks. I can't square what I know with this author's premise.
Evangelicals, self-proclaimed "christians," voted 80% for a man who demonized immigrants. I know these people, I have family members in that demographic, and they are as racist as any Southern Baptist, who, BTW, always were the mother church of the KKK --- and still are.
Our evangelicals are as morally bankrupt at the man they elected.
I curse the GOP for engaging evangelicals with decades of hollow promises to overturn Roe. Last time I voted GOP was 1992; I'll never vote GOP again until they turn loose their unholy alliance with religion. All its gotten us is the "Koch & Pope" agenda to take us back to the dark ages of poverty and sexual repression.
8
Hitler was an atheist and the Nazi party was unfriendly to religion. Sure, Hitler reached a modus operandi with the Roman Catholic Church and organized his own pro-regime evangelical church. But that did not change his secularism nor that of his party. This poll suggests that secular conservatives in the US are closer to fascism than religious conservatives, probably because secular conservatives embrace some version of social Darwinism whereas Christian evangelicals have more distance from evolution in any form, even that one.
2
Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported and voted for DJT. That says all I need to know about their values; in majority, they have none. Hypocrites.
5
They seem perfectly willing to throw those beliefs out as soon as abortion comes up - while accusing anyone who makes a data-driven policy argument of 'moral flexibility'.
Do a better study. Look at regions of high church participation, and then measure racial equality in those same regions. What I expect you'll find is a new conclusion:
"Religious conservatives are better at hiding their prejudice."
4
We certainly appear to be co-mingling a lot of labels for people here. Some think that all Republicans are Evangelical Christians and Biblucal fundamentalists. Others think that all Republicans are consecutive. And yet others think that all Republicans who voted for Trump like and admire him. And the media refers to ALL of the above as the “Christian Right”.
All these assumptions are wrong in so many ways, I have no idea how many Republicans are also Evangelicals or fundamentalists, but the ones I know are members of mainstream Christian denominations. Several others are Roman Catholics. Some identify as “conservative “, others as “moderate”.
I don’t know any Republicans who voted for Trump who admire him or the way he has conducted his personal life. But I’m sure the same could be said of Democrats - few probablyadmired Bill Clinton’s womanizing and conduct with the infamous Monica. But they still voted for him twice.
It’s just not as simple as highly partisan individuals would like it to be.
4
"Churchgoing Trump voters care far more than nonreligious ones about racial equality (67 percent versus 49 percent) and reducing poverty (42 percent versus 23 percent). "
Am I supposed to be impressed by these numbers? Only two-thirds of Trump's religious base cares about racial equality and less than half care about reducing poverty? And these are the Christians?
I'll say it again: the values of the Values Voters are on full display in the person and presidency of Donald Trump.
12
As an evangelical who did not vote for Trump, and will most likely never vote Republican again, I can attest this is true.
The issues they get hung up on, and are deeply emotional about, and that drive their votes, are abortion and LGBT people.
As to abortion, while I personally do not agree with it as a form of general birth control, I have read too many instances where people had to make an extremely difficult decision in the matter. It is not my decision to make for them. And no one is making anyone get an abortion they don't want. It is simply something the state has decided to allow. It allows other things evangelicals would be against but those are not so emotional.
As to the LGBT issue, Christians cannot get it through their heads that Jesus would not look down on those people were he here today. Jesus associated with women, who were looked at as equal to dogs in his day. Jesus associated with loose women, gaining their trust and devotion. Even standing up for one caught in adultery by religious leaders. Allowing the accuser without sin to cast the first stone and advising the woman to sin no more as her accusers slunk away. He hung out with tax collectors who were despised by the Jews as collaborators with the Romans and crooks who swindled their countrymen.
Sadly, evangelicals are so busy looking at everyone else's sin they do not realize their self righteousness is as bad or worse.
126
@JKile LGBT people are an “issue”? Really? Their right to exist? Their right to marry? To love? To own property? I’ve never thought of myself as an issue.
@JKile
Jesus would tell the LBGT community to mend its ways. He led writers over the passage of centuries to come back to avoiding wrong sexual practices again and again. These sexual practices are unmistakeably contrary to Heaven's plans for mankind.
The best I can tell, God CHALLENGES the non-straight communities to go without sexual release. What a tough expectation in our culture!
But their example of chasity would end up being the thing they were remembered for.
We still love the person even as we explain God's expecations to them. Our LBGT people figure out how this does make perfect sense.
This is nonsense. They don't call it a flock for nothing. This is a cult whose followers are sheep being shepardered by a gang of conmen grifters and apologists.
2
I think church going right wingers are just more adept at self delusion.
6
If you knowingly vote for a bigot then you are also a bigot.
If you knowingly vote for a xenophobe then you also a xenophobe.
If you knowingly vote for a misogynist then you are also a misogynist.
Period.
2
One wants to believe that at least a few Evangelicals have actually read and thought about the Sermon on the Mount. This data suggests that perhaps some have. Time will tell whether such cohort simply exists as an artificial and passive polling collectivity or possesses enough vitality to alter the internal social dynamic of largely conformist church communities. America would certainly could become a better place if Christians incorporated more of Jesus's core teachings into their political lives.
1
As with most things "religious vs secular", the author here completely fails to account for the fact that there simply ARE more religious people than there are non-religious or secular people. It's the age old refuted argument "Christians give more to charity than atheists!" without taking in to account that there are hundreds of thousands times as many Christians as there are atheists. If, out of 100,000 Christians, 10,000 give to charity regularly, and if, out of 1000 atheists, 100 regularly give to charity, it is fallacious to conclude that Christians give 1000 times more to charity than atheists! All it concludes is that ~10% of people give to charity, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof.
2
Actions speak louder than words, Emily, and evangelical Christians consistently vote for politicians who preach the OPPOSITE values. Which leaves us with one of two conclusions about your survey: Christians don’t care all that much about those issues anyway or they’re lying to you (or themselves).
6
More evidence the poll is constructed to create a biased result:
The definition of "warm feelings" ("favorable attitudes") toward the specified racial minorities and immigrant issues skews the results.
The poll respondents measured "warm" feelings as the range of 52 - 100 on a 100 point scale. For example, the frequent church-going respondents may have averaged out to a 57% favorable response toward Hispanics, but the poll results make it appear to be 73%.
The use of "secular" in this poll is also deceitful. The most common definition of the word indicates non-affiliation with religion. This leads the reader to believe those who never/seldom attend church or go once or twice a month may not believe in god or in organized religion, whereas nowhere in the poll does it actually state the religious beliefs of the participants.
7
What makes someone a conservative Christian if they do not go to church or has it become primarily a political designation?
As far as we have heard Trump was not baptized, does not behave as if he believes in sin, folds his hands at prayer breakfasts but has never mentioned praying nor behave as though he believes in a fiery hereafter. I know there are legions of us who do not understand the support so called religious right gives Trump other than condemning anyone who does not live as they preach but don't necessarily practice.
2
It doesn't matter how many voters care about racial equality and reducing poverty if they consistently vote for people who don't.
173
What difference do their moderate views make if they're still voting for an extremist like Trump? Churchgoing conservatives might say they care about how African Americans, immigrants, and Muslims are treated, but until they start mobilizing against Trump and his enablers in large, loud numbers, this will remain empty talk.
3
I cannot agree more. Those warm feelings are just eyewash for the pollsters.
2
“Churchgoing Trump voters have more favorable feelings toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims and immigrants compared with nonreligious Trump voters.”
Or, more plausibly, churchgoing Trump voters feel more obliged to pay lip service toward Christian principles such as love for thy neighbor, or that we are all made in God’s image, etc. But the substance is the same. After all, they are still supporting the same bigot, adulterer, and con man as the non-churchgoing Trump supporters.
It’s not just in the era of Trump, but I’ve noticed that right-wing evangelicals (of which many Christians in the United States are not) are big on talk and short on actions when it comes to what the bible teaches. They love to drop bible quotes, praise-Jesus’s, and make a lot of outward show of their religion. But in practice there is very little charitable spirit or humility. Their religion tends to be a means for self-righteous justification and hypocrisy (note how unrepentant Roy Moore remains.)
3
The divide is artificial and created on purpose by Republicans and their think tanks and talking heads.
And the Cato Institute, founded by the Kochs, has been part of the problem all these years.
3
This study 'revealing liberal tolerance' among religious persons falls in the category of "Intuitively obvious to the most casual observer." Go to any religious service and open your eyes & ears.
2
I am looking forward to the day which I believe may be coming soon when Putin -- annoyed by Trump’s sudden burst of sanctions activity against him -- will finally begin releasing some of the hotel room “golden shower” tapes that Trump stars in.
Netflix and HBO will bid furiously for the rights to air them.
Fundamentalist preachers will appear on CNN and denounce Putin as Satan and defend Trump as a sinner who has redeemed himself by appointing Christian judges to the courts.
Fox News will brand the tapes as an outright fraud created by friends of Hillary Clinton.
Melania will remain silent.
Trump himself will announce further sanctions against Russia and point to greater depravity by Bill Clinton.
Mueller, Rosenstein and Sessions will all be let go and replaced by Trump flunkies.
Republicans will sit on their hands while announcing plans for further budget-breaking tax cuts.
The present craziness is just beginning.
We ain’t seen nothing yet.
2
Interesting that the study showed tolerance for “sexual minorities” is still very low. Taken in the context of the extreme evangelical opposition to abortion rights, I see the real Evangelical problem as one with non-Biblically-mandated sex: no sex out of wedlock, no sex between anyone but heterosexuals.
Evangelical-driven Republican policy clearly has nothing whatever to do with the sanctity of life. It has everything to do with a prurient obsession with who is schtupping whom. (See: Kavanaugh and the Starr report....piggier than those hog ponds in North Carolina!)
3
The religious right has been tearing America apart since the Republicans enlisted them with their anti-aging stance decades ago. Since their desire to define abortion as murder and criminalize it overrides all reason for them, it does not matter how many other issues they may have in common with liberals. They will always vote Republican, and are therefore the enemy of the left. There is no point in looking for common ground when insertion of their religious superstitions into our secular society is their primary goal. Maybe if we started taxing their political action committees, otherwise known as their churches, they might be persuaded to change their tune. Giving their churches tax-exempt status while they play politics is unconstitutional. Tax religion now. Forget about converting the lost causes and work on getting lazy liberal-leaning voters out to vote. Liberals have nothing in common with anti-abortion voters. Period.
3
@wcdevins
"anti-aging" should, of course, be "anti-abortion". Auto-correct seems it knows what I want to say even when I say otherwise.
I’m sorry, you can’t make the claim that people who voted for Donald Trump actually care about racism and lessening poverty. People who prioritize those aims don’t vote for republicans. The Republican Party falls into 2 buckets; a minority of open racists and a majority who are frankly indifferent to racism as long as they get what they want. There is no political constituency if ANTI-racists in the Republican Party which is why we have all these stories of bigots throughout the past 50 years running as republicans. Steve Scalice said he was “David Duke without the baggage”. You couldn’t keep your seat as a democrat saying stuff like that. Also, if evangelicals were so worried about racism, why are the few black people in their churches leaving now as chronicled in this paper just in March? It sure doesn’t seem these black people agree with the white evangelical self assessment.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/us/blacks-evange...
2
Let me see if I have this right: The bad (Trump voters whose worst instincts are curbed by some primitive moral teachings) are better than the worst (other Trump voters). Somehow this does not seem very reassuring. Let's take a more Utopian view- what if all Trump voters adopted the reasoning and morality of elite, urban atheists? Now we're talking.
3
The Republican Party has gone insane, and the current American version of Christianity, especially Southern Baptists, has been a blight on humanity in historical proportions. Put that in your blur-the-evidence, muddy-the-waters as much as possible poll.
6
Duh.... of course we have more in common than most people think.
The divide is artificial to get people to vote Republican against their own interest.
But worse, it is also against the good of the country since Republicans get in office and then only take care of the rich.
Republicans get this divide with evangelicals and also with the NRA folks.
And I have to laugh when they tell me I am the liberal elite. I grew up blue collar, first generation to go to college which I worked through high school and college to pay for myself.
Help me to understand: Why did religious conservatives vote for Trump???
All the values that the religious right upholds according to this article were found in only one of the two candidates: Hillary Clinton.
1
The only thing I have to say about this is Freedom of Religion and Free Speech.
I can only say that in my experience the exact opposite is true.
Freethinkers tend to be exactly that: freethinkers; more open to trying to understand everything around them, and not abiding by collective peer-pressure arising from some archaic religious dogma.
Catholics are still filling the churches in droves, thereby still actively supporting an institution that remains in denial of its own pedophilia!
And if anyone believes a poll, whereby someone has to admit to being a racist, well, there's some swampland I have for sale. Good grief! Birthirism Trump says he's not a racist! And yet employs one of the biggest racists this country has seen in years: Miller.
Just more self-righteous religious hypocrisy.
6
1. Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.
2. Only 42% support reducing poverty...that is nothing to be proud of.
3. The article ignores how religion is weaponized to specifically discriminate against the LGBT community. If you are going to try to say that reminding people "that we are all God's children" is what explains the poll numbers, then there should be higher tolerance for "all". You try to brush it away by saying "This hasn't extended to sexual minorities as much as progressives may like", probably because it is really harmful to your argument that higher tolerance in not applying to "all".
4. Why would Democrats need to speculate on race and ethnicity issues to have a negative view of evangelicals? Evangelicals treatment of the LGBT community is plenty sufficient to sully their reputation.
3
This op-ed makes one utterly crucial point that we ignore at our peril. People with deep and meaningful attachments to community are less likely to join fascist mobs who find their only connections in hatred of the other.
Church isn't the only form of community, but for many Americans it has traditionally been one of the most compelling. But we live in an era where *all* meaningful attachments face growing headwinds.
We don't just go to church less: we volunteer less, join fewer social organizations, report fewer friends and weaker connections with family. For many Americans (and others), our interactions are increasingly instrumental and market-based: thinner, ultimately less satisfying.
As long as these social megatrends keep worsening, the dangers of Trumpism and even worse political sociopathies will keep on rising.
67
@Bill Camarda
For too many Americans, their church IS the fascist mob.
1
@Bill Camarda As long as Americans tolerate a job market that drives movement away from families, we will have poor social connection.
@Bill Camarda “People with deep and meaningful attachments to community are less likely to join fascist mobs who find their only connections in hatred of the other.“
But haven’t they? They might not personally be running around with Tiki torches doing Sieg Heils, but they are politically aligned. They are giving their vote to the same political leaders and political agenda the tiki torch carrying types are supporting. It is a distinction without a difference. When it comes down to the political bottom line, it is the same.
1
Polls in recent years have become increasingly less predictive of and increasingly a funhouse mirror snapshot of the subject at hand. Politics and religion are particularly susceptible to these misinterpretations. This article based polls is but another shot in the dark.
Yet another example is the opposite conclusions of a Quinnipiac poll vis a vis a Reuters poll this week, the first showing Ted Cruz with a 9-point lead over Beto O'Rourke and the latter give Beto a 2-point edge over Lyin' Ted.
This sort of reporting could actually precipitate an advantage to Beto, as a reportedly comfortable lead for Cruz might make Republicans less concerned on election day, deciding that voting at that moment is too inconvenient and, besides, Cruz is a lock now.
My hoped-for scenario is the latter, but exactly the opposite situation is every bit as likely.
Polls belong in the entertainment section of a newspaper, not on the front page.
My real problem with religious conservatives is not that they are either religious or conservative, but their leaders , like Graham, feel so unashamed about the bargain they've made with the devil to get the results they want on abortion and other issues. Here, as on other matters, there is the right way and a wrong way. Their choice is so blatantly wrong.
2
"Many progressives hope that encouraging conservatives to disengage from religion will make them more tolerant."
Short of divine intervention- that ain't happening anytime soon.
It's difficult to see the point this author from the Cato Institute is trying to make. The group she is defining (church going Trump voters v. non-church going Trump voters) all voted for Trump. If someone has "good feelings" towards ethnic minorities (I notice she doesn't mention the dreaded gays or discuss abortion), but still vote for the racist, well, I really don't see that their church going actually gets us anywhere.
4
How are "warm feelings" measured? In degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit? Then the Liberalism of the Right? What's the point in quantifying the absurd?
1
I love it when Trump apologists think they have a lock on statistics that explain why they are really not bad people - my favorite in this editorial, as well as many others in the Trump apologist category is "church-going evangelicals". A least secular conservatives are not in hiding. You can't blame "secular humanists" either, who universally hold that reducing poverty and suffering is a core belief, as opposed to the pathetic statistic of only 42% of evangelicals who care about poverty. Boy, that explains a lot, I really never did understand Evangelical core beliefs, and now I do. Well Done Cato, thanks for the education (sorry, I mean thank you Koch brothers).
3
Everyone is either an atheist, agnostic, or a believer in a God. Christians know that "all men are sinners and fall short of the Glory of God." Romans 3:23.
There are times when it does not matter whether a majority or a minority of people have the commanding ruling voice. If the ruling voice is indecent and immoral, selfish and sadistic....then the ruling few or the many......are totally wrong.
What's the difference between a Christian and an atheist.....and the difference between separation of church and state?
Blessed be those that believe in His name: who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Two of the greatest peacemaker in modern history, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, owned no more than the shirts on their backs. Yet they stood on their religious beliefs and did not falter. They defended justice and freedom for millions and in the end sacrificed their very own lives. It is right to work hard and provide for our families. However, If we only understand success in terms of money, then we will never know the true worth of any one person.
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Constitutional separation of church and state allows American Christians to hold on to their faith, however also allows atheists and agnostics to turn their immoral and indecent beliefs into constitutional laws and destroy the American Christian Church.
1
@manoflamancha
You lost any credibility when you said that
Everyone is either an atheist, agnostic, or a believer in a God. Not every religion has a god or gods.
4
Agnostics and atheists, whom you call immoral and indecent, don't believe in your backwards and intolerant superstitious, religious authoritarianism, regressive anti-female, anti-gay stances, or your attempts to hijack our secular country in the name of your book of fairy tales by circumventing the Constitution. Immoral and indecent are apparently in the eye of the beholder. And I behold that religion is a blight on humanity, the root of all evil.
4
There is a lot of wishful thinking in this article. In a nutshell, the religious right talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk: when the rubber meets the road, they keep overwhelmingly supporting a president that violates many of the core tenets of the religious right. The most distinctive feature of these modern-day pharisees is their inveterate hypocrisy - the discrepancy between the results of the opinion polls and the actual actions of this group merely corroborate that fact.
1
I suppose it's a bit comforting to read that religious conservatives are not as prejudiced as their secular counterparts, but the fact remains that they overwhelmingly voted for and continue to support a president who has been twice divorced, openly admitted adulterous behavior, freely discussed sexually assaulting women, and expressed numerous bigoted/racist/misogynistic thoughts.
I'm also less sanguine with their lack of respect for democracy. They don't have to agree with abortion rights, but 65% of Americans support a woman's right to choose, and the totalitarian impulses of the religious right leads them to support a hypocritical Republican agenda to impose minority rule on this country by any means possible, including collusion (whether actively or passively) with the Russians.
Ultimately, religious conservatives voted for Trump, whose values contradict everything they supposedly stand for. This makes them hypocrites, given their professed religious beliefs.
111
Reading through this piece, I am reminded of, oh, just about every political policy poll I've ever seen. Give subjects a choice between a liberal position and a conservative position, and almost every time, the majority prefers the liberal position. So how does this play out at the ballot box? Well, every one of the Trump voters who participated in this poll of Trump voters, voted for Trump. They can claim to be the nicest people on earth, but their actions prove differently.
5
Somewhere along the line of my 80 years, I read this wisdom. “ The purpose of religion is to awaken the sleeping man”. Sorry I don’t have the source.
I also remember Ram Dass saying in one of his books that “ religion is like a boat, used to get one across that river” and that one would have to abandon the boat to continue along the path to knowledge and or enlightenment.
IMHO those who participate in religious organizations and ritual, in spite of the hypocrisy, are motivated by the promise of salvation. They are in various stages of the awakening process. Those that aren’t, are either asleep or have gone beyond that river.
For those that are asleep, don’t waste your breath. They have no understanding of the experience of empathy.
Those in the awakening process have some knowledge and or experience of empathy.
For those that are beyond religion and are awake enough to have empathetic feelings there is no data in these polls.
Perhaps if Pollsters could figure a way to test for empathetic capability, the data would be more meaningful.
1
I thik the object of this article was actually to try and point out that religious conservatives may be less conservative than secular conservaties on many issues. That messages gets a bit lost though since it reads more like an apology for religious conservatives, or at least evangelicals.
Within any group you will always be able so say there ar those who are more moderate and those who are more radical so I don't think we're learning much new on that front.
Regardless of what this group is and how moderate, tolerant, etc they may be on certain issues it's really irrelevant. They voted for Trump/Republican which tells us that in reality those are not primary issues for them. They voted for the abandonment of state/church seperation, they voted to make abortion illegal, they voted for lower taxes, etc. Primarily, they voted for imposing their moralistic religious world view upon the rest of us. They may say they want more immigration, more compassion, etc but they didn't vote for it, they voted for the opposite. It's easy to stand there and be like: "Oh yeah look at our morals and compassion, but we can't do anything" It's simply public grandstanding. So if they were serious about those points of view they would vote with their conscious not with their religion.
4
I Should probably also point out that the Cato Institute is part of the Koch Network and was founded as the Charles Koch Institute.
Their political doctrine is defined as libertinarism and they define their focus as: public advocacy, media exposure and societal influence. Essentially socially liberal, fiscally conservative in all it's oxymoronic glory.
They're primary sources of funding are private donors and they are a generally well regarded think tank by bodies such as the University of Pennsylvania's Think Tanks and Civil societies Program. Although it should be noted that their status has been in decline over the last decade.
2
I have read an article about this study that points out one flaw in the data interpretation. (If I could remember, I would give credit.) According to that writer, "goes to church most Sundays" is interpreted as equal to "religious"; and "not going to church most Sundays" is interpreted as "not religious." But, he says, there are many Evangelicals, and largely the fiercest ones, who do not go to church at all. They watch their religious services on TV.
I suggest that going to church services is a marker, not of religiosity, but of sociability and social connectedness. There is a much stronger correlation between social connectedness and going to church services on Sundays (or other days). There is also a correlation between a high level of social connectedness and the absence of racist, sexist, and classist attitudes. So what the data in this study may show is that religious people who value social connectedness go to church services. I think I already knew that.
2
I can't tell what the average church-goer thinks or feels, but it's abundantly clear what the evangelical leaders who have political influence are about. If you had any doubts about that, just look at today's article about them pushing hard to get Kavanaugh confirmed as quickly as possible. Nothing in their "faith" seems to call for anyone to even investigate whether Kavanaugh might be a rapist or a liar! And their followers are among the most loyal Trump supporters. Southern Baptists and Mormons may be objecting to some Trump policies, but it is the Ralph Reeds of the country that have the administration's ear.
4
This is a classic example of how polling data is easily used to 'prove' that people are mischaracterizing a group, and it comes down to looking at their claimed attitudes, not their actions. What a person says is interesting, but it is their actions where you see who someone is. 42% may say they want to get rid of poverty, but how about the other 58% (Jesus didn't say blessed were the rich, nor did he say the poor were 'the least among us"), and how about them voting for politicians who think the poor are lazy and the rich blessed? It means that 42% either agrees with the Ayn Rand view of the poor, or they are ignoring that while voting for the politicians they do. 67% are for racial equality and supporting immigrants, but again, if it is important to them, why do they routinely vote for politicians who are racist/anti immigrant? The polls don't tell that, but it is pretty obvious. Some probably are racist or anti poor, but the real reason is the same way they can support Trump, who they admit is not exactly a good Christian morally, and that is that when it comes down to action, they vote against their beliefs, because they basically have reduced Christianity down to being anti LGBT and anti abortion and Trump and the GOP supports these. It is what someone does that matters, it isn't what they claim to believe, which by the way is a fundamental Christian teaching, that what you do is more about being Christian than what you believe, something the conservative ignore.
6
In a new poll, 99% of participants, when asked if they were liars and hypocrites, said that they were not!
5
The Christian community in America is defined by its thirst for power over others. They want America to be a religious country. Like Saudi Arabia.
They espouse a perverse interpretation of one of the bedrocks of our country, that of the religious freedoms promised in the Constitution. This is fundamentally dishonest and corrupting.
Very recently, the ability of non profit religious groups to espouse candidates has increased dramatically, and most of them thumb their noses at what remains of their legal restraints.
Its good to hear that there are some less right wing views among church goers, but I'd much rather read that they go to church as private individuals with private spiritual views, which they keep to themselves.
As it is, Christian interaction in our politics is antithetical to the basis of the Constitution.
7
I keep wondering why conservative religious folk don't speak and act against sexual harassment and misconduct. Surely Jesus would.
3
"Many progressives hope that encouraging conservatives to disengage from religion will make them more tolerant."
The word "many" is doing yeoman's work in that sentence. I defy Ms. Ekins to name a single Democratic politician of any standing who has suggested that any American citizen, or non-American, would be better off "disengaging from religion." The unexamined assumptions of the columnist (and author of the study) are consistent with the intellectual laziness and shoddiness of the underlying work. Ms. Ekins's own regression analyses show the correlation between church attendance and these positive feelings to be exceedingly minor, assuming her data is at all useful (which it likely is not, due to her methodology) and that she performed the analysis properly (also doubtful, given her provenance and paymasters).
It is utterly beyond me what the point of publishing this column was, beyond attempting to burnish the social credentials of a movement that has hung like a millstone around the neck of American politics for generations now. Evangelical Christianity is the bedrock of an anti-choice movement that increases both the number of abortions (by opposing sex ed) and their danger (by opposing their legality); it underlies climate change denial and the worst of the anti-environmentalist movement (google James "Jesus will be back by then" Watt); it votes in lockstep for right-wing politicians without regard to corruption, criminality or capability and has for decades.
3
Yes, but what do those same “Christians” feel about a woman’s right to her body or equal rights for gays?
They are and will always be right wing extremists and vote republican regardless of the other issues.
4
As a gay man I'm not comfortable with the idea that my civil rights should be sacrificed to appease religious conservatives. I feel like this article minimizes me. I don't think that the cruelty with which many religious conservatives treat people like me is something that can or should be overlooked. They say they love me, but leave me no pathway for happiness until I'm dead. That's not love; it's psychological abuse.
9
"In fact, many conservative Christian churches disapprove of the Trump administration’s handling of immigration. The National Association of Evangelicals, representing 45,000 churches, asked President Trump to end family separation at the border because it caused “traumatic effects” on young children."
And yet many of these same folks continue in their unwavering support of Trump and his various congressional minions at the polls. It's all about "the policies," they claim; no matter if the "devil" is their policymaker.
1
Of the liberal attitudes you ascribe to the religious right, you've left out one big chunk. Womens' issues, especially regarding our reproductive lives. These are life and death topics for 51% of the total population, yet they are absent from your list of conservative religions' wonderful values. The fact that it's not even on the radar of evolved thinking of these groups demonstrates that it's really the main thing driving them.
7
I find no comfort in the findings that religious conservatives are more tolerant and accepting of immigrants and ethnic minorities than I might have expected - when they continue to support candidates who are not.
They have made their deal with the devil. They voted for a president who promised to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade and perhaps even same sex marriage. Those two issues are so overwhelmingly important to them that they can be counted upon to look the other way when conservative Republicans vote to eliminate healthcare for millions of people, cut programs to aid the poor and adopt the most inhumane immigration policy this country has ever seen.
It does not matter one tiny bit that some religious conservatives are upset by those policies when Republicans in office know that they will never pay a political price for engaging in them - at least not from religious conservatives. As long as they tow the line on abortion and suppressing the rights of the LGBTQ community, they get a free pass on the most un-Christian like behavior imaginable.
And therein lies the hypocrisy that frustrates so many liberals and progressives such as myself.
4
Those of us left of center - well, many of us - still have in our memories parents and grandparents for whom organized religion played a more significant role in their lives.
AND many of us - to this day - share most values with their parents. I'm sure that could be documented!
BUT ... this article is so inept that its core truth - that to say someone is religious is not to say that they're ... Trump-like - is not worth slogging through the rest.
NO CHARTS?! The Times is doing a great job with tough issues to use techniques honed in the last 50 years (even if the Times has only adopted them in the last 5) to help get through what can be opaque.
Maybe, too many editors have been let go; maybe, the "opinion" section is under-staffed, and if an article has an interesting premise and doesn't stink, it gets published.
THE BIG problem is the lack of segmentation - Unitarians are not Southern Baptists; neither are evangelicals, of course.
There certainly are similar fissures in the Jewish community!
But even worse, the article looks like it cherry picked so as to come up with a "feel good" story line.
YES, it is wonderful that they feel as they do (and have voiced those feelings effectively) on immigration issues!!
But does anyone think that they're as accepting of "diversity" as a control group who are not regular "worshipers?!"
And the worst of all - where are the questions (and pcts!) re women's issues? Everything from "equal pay" to their role in families to abortion?
2
This piece, and the related column by Ross Douthat, are very misleading, as pointed out by Kevin Drum (https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/09/religion-and-racism-still.... "Non-churchgoing" does NOT equal secular--many people who consider themselves to be quite religious do not attend church regularly.
3
The poll result is biased. The emphasis on church-goers having "more favorable feelings toward Muslims in 2016" is one example. The "more favorable feelings" accounts for 27% of those polled, so that leaves close to 70% (+/- margin) who don't have "favorable feelings" toward Muslims.
Anti-Muslim sentiment is not liberal, and frankly it's ridiculous to assert the religious right has shades of liberalism as their political goals show little compassion toward anyone they consider the "other".
On a somewhat related note, secular conservatives tend to be libertarians. Libertarians do not support social programs at all, so it's no surprise they hold less tolerant views (term used loosely) than church-goers.
3
Fifty-one percent of non-churchgoing Trump voters don't think racial equality matters. In 2018. That's heartbreaking and shows how much harder the rest of us--the other 49%, the majority of churchgoing Trump voters, and the majority of non-Trump voters--need to be working to get egalitarian voters to the polls.
1
Ms. Elkins, in an earlier response to a Douthat piece on this subject, the point was made that a more nuanced and thoughtful fact based, survey confirmed discussion was needed.
Alas it won't happen in these comment streams. Too many minds are closed, and positions hardened. Of course people of various faith traditions who actually worship, and aren't lapsed secularists in truth, don't all think alike, vote alike, or reach identical conclusions on culture war or economic issues. Often they have more centrist views.
But that undeniable fact sticks in the craw of militant atheists (particularly of the hard Left) who prefer stereotypes and strawmen. Frankly if I can get a Baptist or a Mormon or Hindu or Catholic to vote for a Democrat in a few weeks because they have had it with the policies and the meanness of Trump, I'll say welcome aboard and thank you for your exercise of conscience. Your faith is no stumbling block for Democrats, nor should it be.
@Unworthy Servant
I'm somewhat liberal and an atheist. I'm unsure what a militant atheist is, as most of us aren't part of any organization promoting atheism, unlike religious communities.
I've no doubt there are a multitude of the faithful who care about racial equality, but what I don't understand is how then could they possibly have voted for Trump?
4
When you get an anti-abortion evangelical to vote for a Democrat let us know. If I were you, I'd spend my time getting lazy or disenfranchised or disinterested left-leaning stay-at-homes out to vote. The Religious right is a lost cause. They have made their bargain with the Trump/GOP devil and will take it to their graves.
4
I'm glad that some on the religious right say they are in favor of "the biblical mandate to act compassionately towards those in need." I'm glad that the National Association of Evangelicals asked "to resume a robust U.S. refugee resettlement program."
But words are cheap, and actions, which speak louder, have mainly seemed to point in the opposite direction. Is there any way to convince evangelicals to act in accordance with what they say?
Maybe Trump voters who go to church more often say they are more opposed to the border wall, but on the other hand, Trump voters who go to church acted - voted - for the border wall...
8
Certainly the Pharisees in the New Testament were the closest thing to the Fundamentalist Evangelicals today. Jesus contested the Pharisees at every turn. He knew they shared a faith in God, but their application of the Law was absolutely wrong and contrary to God's will. The percentages quoted regarding Trump's church going supporters doesn't warm my heart one bit. It simply reflects the same approach the New Testament Pharisees took, look good.
2
Two things:
1. I simply don't believe anything coming from the CATO institute. Their whole purpose is to promote conservatism and their research is always flawed. This one is flawed as well, so read it with a grain of salt. There are other surveys that disagree with these results.
2. Evangelicals hate three things: abortion, same-sex marriage, and the so-called war on Christianity. They ignore every teaching of Jesus in order to vote against their three hatreds.
Of course they don't like that refugee children are taken from their parents as if that is some sort of strong moral stance. Even so, they will support an administration that does that very thing in hopes that the same administration will support their hatred of abortion and same-sex marriage, and war on Christmas. Evangelicals vote as a bloc against the ethics of Jesus.
10
The religious right enjoys unearned privilege in American society. They know that their religious beliefs can act as a lazy shortcut to good morals, one through which profession of goodness is akin to being good. Have you ever been to the Bible Belt? It's not the only place where you will find Christian hypocrisy, but anyone who believes uncritically what a Christian conservative says about their own morals is as naive as they come.
The poll written about in this article is interesting, but we're still looking at differences among Trump voters. *Among*....they still voted for Donald Trump! As far as I can tell, these religious right Trump enablers aren't more sensitive to racial and economic equality and justice for immigrants; they're simply more prone to claim that their beliefs are compassionate. Sure, they volunteer. Good for them. But they're voting for politicians that routinely defund state and federal programs (they're still conservatives, remember?), so allow me to point out that they're creating more problems for the people they seem to have such high compassion for.
It's time to stop pandering to religious conservatives. They enjoy a privileged position politically (due to being a large proportion of the electorate), but not morally. When they stop being conservative, then and only then do they get to lay claim to liberal values like human rights. What they do with their religious beliefs is none of my concern.
150
@Doug I agree completely. While it is an interesting perspective and would generally make sense, does it really matter what evangelicals *feel* about these issues? They still vote hand over fist for conservative values, many of which are counter to their christian values, but saying evangelical hypocrisy is redundant. Cherry picking a few irregularities in polling hardly proves evangelicals to be compassionate people or even care about those they claim to care for. What more is the big one, abortion, is completely ignored by this analysis, and for most any common ground is immediately erased as abortion is and will continue to be an issue. So while I now have learned that maybe some evangelicals are more aligned with the modern world than we have been led to believe, when it matters, evangelicals are still supporting Trump and the current GOP at levels never before seen. Polls on feelings might shed some kind of light on this group of people, but the only poll that matters is very clear. They don't vote with moderate views.
6
@Doug Doug, Who is "pandering" to religious conservatives? They're being savaged in these comments! But if conservatives really don't care about human rights you're correct. All that volunteering, donating and inclusion is just a ruse.
1
I don't buy it. I'd love to see the raw data. I'm pretty sure that the Evangelicals are just as racist as the secular Trump voters.
3
Churchgoing Trump voter still sounds nonsensical and hypocritical to me.
2
And yet they voted for Trump, knowing what he stands for. It doesn't matter how far to the left they stand from their irreligious fellow-Trump supporters. They stood with the devil and so bear his witness.
3
Emily, isn't it clear to you that anyone who fits the description "churchgoing Trump voter" must be a hypocrite?
8
@Len Charlap Oxymoron too maybe?
2
When we start taking advice on liberalism from the Cato Institute we’re in a lot of trouble.
8
I woke up this morning wondering how the Mormon Church got its tax-exemption, probably because Orrin Hatch has been on tv so much lately, trying to get his Boy, Kav, on the Supreme Court.
And, though Kav is not a Mormon, he has the absolute backing of that tax-exempt church.
Point by point, Kavanaugh lines up perfectly with Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, conservative sects, traditional cults and White Nationalists.
Kav's country club has no love for blacks or Jews.
Just like so many conservative churches in America.
Kavanaugh, himself, has no love for women.
They must be breeders.
Their purpose is to tend the man, do as they are told and stay away from abortions and those "abortifacients" like BIRTH CONTROL!!!!
Think on that.
After he rids this empirical existence of the SIN of abortion, then all other means of abortion must go, too.
Like birth control.
Yes, you and I understand that the science doesn't back him up, but I can't think of any Republican who cares what science says on anything.
I suspect the Cato Institute doesn't give a fig, either.
All churches are supported by all right-wing groups: Cato, Heritage, Federalist Society, Freedom Caucus, ALEC, NRA and everything supported by the Kochs, Mercers, Greens....
I don't think that Emily Ekins has a clue what "liberalism" means.
In fact, I doubt that she has ever even read "Cato", a man known as foul even in the ancient world for wanting to starve his slaves because it was cheaper just to buy more.
Why, Times?
9
Nothing coming out of the Cato Institute can be taken at face value.
10
Propaganda.
This author, and her study, have been funded by the Cato Institute?
“The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.”
Lots of church-going people in the US may attest to their own warm fuzzy forgiving feelings for black folk and gays ... in the abstract, when polled.
But are they willing to pay higher federal taxes to help support those in our country who are struggling? Nah.
They’re “libertarian.” They tithe for one another and preach to one another and demand independence from the federal government.
Translation of “libertarian”: I grab what I can for myself and my fellow believers. You outsiders
... try harder to earn the love of Jesus and lots of money.
As other people have mentioned in these comments, 80% of Evangelical Christians supported Donald Trump, a vicious, vindictive, racist, ignorant serial macho fornicator.
Jesus is weeping. And perhaps laughing and shaking his head at this typically human, institutionalized hypocrisy.
He didn’t much like Pharisees.
And I doubt he likes the Koch Brothers. Or their friends.
7
This really is damning with faint praise. "Slightly better than white supremacists" isn't really a great position on the decency spectrum to hold. Certainly, the notion that this constitutes some common ground is laughable. For instance, some members of my family are gay, one is trans, and almost none are Christian. Several of them are, gasp, female! These people would very much like to make my family second class citizens and subject some of them to torture, err, I mean "conversion therapy" or forced birthing.
How does one make common ground with that?
6
"Ms. Ekins in the director of polling and a research fellow at the Cato Institute."
Therefore, she has no credibility whatsoever. This is just a hack piece that attempts to justify Evangelicals and other right-wing zealots as something other than the supposed "Christians" they purport to be, but most definitely are not.
4
I have one simple question for the author: If the people you write about are so all-fired nice why would they vote for a cretin like Trump?
12
So...pious,spiteful bigots tend to be more smarmy and hypocritical than their heathen counterparts? I suppose that might count as a step toward civilization,but it looks suspiciously like shuffling in place.
1
And yet, they did vote for Trump.
Your study shows they are less bigoted than non-religious Trump voters. That's a pretty low bar, isn't it?
They opposed separating children from their parents at the border. An even lower bar cleared. Congratulations.
They volunteer more than non-religious _conservatives_. More than plutocrats and Ayn Rand devotees. Surprising exactly no one.
They aren't white supremacists. Impressive.
They're less tribal than other Trump voters -- except that when it comes to other people's sex lives they can't clear the bar of tolerance set by their own beliefs. Perhaps their desire to belong to cohesive groups has something to do with that.
They voted for an authoritarian who praises the dictators of the world: Putin, Duterte, Orban, Moriwiecki, Kim Jung Un. Just a coincidence that they worship an all-powerful being and their Lord, the King of Kings, I suppose.
They voted for a profoundly ignorant, morally obtuse, authoritarian, self-absorbed, mentally ill con-man and sexual predator -- because they're surprisingly liberal.
Seriously?
4
"Morality" isn't a destination. It is a code you live by. I can spot a phony a mile away,..... even on Sunday morning.
2
If you voted for Trump then you voted for a racist and misogynist. You can claim that you love and tolerate people who are "different" all you want, but actions speak louder than words.
9
Big deal. They mimic the talk of Christianity and then they still vote for bigots. That is called hypocrisy, which is the hallmark of evangelicalism.
6
Jesus is a fictional charachter and Christianity was an invention of the Romans. The idea that we should use "Christian Principals" to guide this nation is utter nonsense.
4
Trump’s fake Christianity is like that of his evangelical supporters: fraudulent. They have no moral authority. As has been stated before, the religious right is neither right or religious. I hold them all in contempt.
4
Churchgoing Trump voters are still Trump voters. That's about as great a stain on anyone's values and attitudes as it gets, calling into question the validity of any other data as well as their Christianity. The man's character was not hidden prior to his election. The argument of this piece runs like "Good news, they are not first degree murderers, only second degree," or "Churchgoing Trump voters are greater religious hypocrites than non-churchgoing Trump voters."
2
Jesus Christ was a bronze skinned wooly dark eyed dark haired left-wing liberal progressive socialist community human civil rights organizer revolutionary law breaker.
Jesus identified with and offered hope and salvation to the poor, the sick, the despairing, the imprisoned, the naked, the homeless , the humble, the humane, the meek, the empathetic, the thirsty and the hungry. See Matthew 25 :31-46.
4
"Churchgoing Trump voters care far more than nonreligious ones about racial equality (67 percent versus 49 percent) and reducing poverty (42 percent versus 23 percent)."
That's not much comfort. 67% are concerned with racial equality? 42% with reducing poverty? Those are pitiful numbers for a religious institution whose own founder gives explicit commands that read like a socialist manifesto compared to the GOP platform.
It is interesting that when Jesus walked the earth (pulling from biblical accounts of his life) he seemed to have precious few arguments with the secular world. Seemingly all the disputes and arguments were with religious leaders who did not like being confronted with their own hypocrisy.
One thing that gets lost in the supposed conflict between Christians and the secular world is that (according to their own precepts), every single Christian on this planet had to be individually persuaded of the truth of their beliefs. Where Christians maintain their credibility, no force in history has ever snuffed them out. But losing credibility is lethal.
With that in mind, Trump is the single greatest threat to Christianity in this country. Yes, greater than Clinton by a laughably wide margin. Trump and the GOP have so hijacked Christian conservatives that (to the secular world) they are fast becoming indistinguishable. Trump, in particular, is burning their moral credibility as fuel to power his personal ambitions. And when it's all gone? It's over.
143
@Matt
"With that in mind, Trump is the single greatest threat to Christianity in this country. "
From your mouth to God's ear ...
I can only hope that the people cited in this research will vote for candidates who show genuine concern for people of color, the homeless, immigrants, and adherents to all other faiths. This would certainly make our nation a better place.
What a bunch of bologna! People who go to church weekly and say they tolerate people who are different and then vote for a racist and support his policies are simply bigger hypocrites.
7
I'm not sure how this study has managed to separate "Trump supporting" church-goers from all church-goers but I think there is something else at work here. First, there are plenty of genuinely liberal Christians in America. Churches include more than just right-wing Republicans. Secondly, extremist groups like the "Value Voters Summit" are not representative of American Christians. Far-right fundamentalists tend to capture all the attention but are in no way authentic representatives of American Christians. They are......outliers and extremists....they just manage to falsely create an impression that they represent "morality" and Christianity.
2
"Conservative Christian" is an oxymoron.
Jesus was as liberal as they come. He hung out with lepers and fed the impoverished. He healed the sick, and lived with them in squaller. He came to the aid of those who had no status, no voice, and nothing to give Him in return.
The political and religious leaders Jesus fought against? They were the conservative ones.
8
Religious conservatives vote with one issue in mind -- abortion. If I am incorrect why else did they vote for Trump and Pence when the candidates' views on other issues were well known? If racial equality and the rights of asylum seekers and other immigrants are so important why vote for politicians who could care less? There is no middle ground for these voters.
1
So, Trump voters who call themselves "Christians" and actually attend church tend to care more about people than Trump voters who don't. Given the words and actions of Jesus that should hardly come as a surprise. As someone who believes in Jesus as my savior (I quit calling myself a Christian because of "Christians"), it concerns me that the numbers are so low for the "Churchgoing Trump voters" when it comes to caring about racial equality and reducing poverty. How can anyone who knows what Jesus said and did not care about those things? The numbers should be 100%. (And the point of this is not that atheists, agnostics, or those of other faiths cannot care about people.)
Religious Christian organizations only support immigrants for one single reason. They make the most staunch supporters of fundamental, right wing Christianity. I suggest you poll the voting habits of Christian Asians, Hispanics, Middle easterners and Eastern Europeans. You will find the most educated amongst them voting republican and almost all of them against the emancipation of women.
No religious organization believes in democracy. To allow freedom of thinking would be disastrous to any religious order.
7
Emily Ekins writes: “Many people on the left…think the religious right has compromised its Christian values in order to attain political power for Republicans”, but , in contrast, claims that in contrast that “religion appears to actually to be a moderating conservative attitudes particularly on some of the most polarizing issues of our time: race immigration and identity.”
The report which she cites does indeed show that among Trump voters more frequent church attendance does correlate with more “warm feelings” towards Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews (but not Muslims)) and less importance placed on White identity, stricter immigration policies and the border wall (and less warm feelings toward candidate Trump).
What neither the original report nor this op-ed address, at all, are the conservative values that likely drive the voting choice of many religious conservatives: abortion, same-sex marriage, perceived 1st amendment issues and, consequently, Supreme Court nominations.
For many voters, voting, whether acknowledged or not, does involve some compromise in values as seldom does one candidate or party fully reflect one’s own set of values, beliefs etc. With that said, the data presented by the report cited in this op-ed demonstrate exactly the nature of the political compromise of “Christian values” many voters with strong religious views do make – for some it may be easy, for others, perhaps less so.
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank.
Enough said.
Libertarians have the same attitudes toward immigrants and the poor that conservatives have: fend for yourselves.
The whole premise of this article is specious.
3
This presentation is ripe for misinterpretation and abuse since it fails to compare the views of Trump voters, secular and religious, with non-Trump voters, secular and religious.
1
In this survey, I see no definition of survey takers, other than phrases like "conservatives who attend church." How were these people selected? The survey reports items like "attitudes *toward* black people." Does this mean that black people were excluded from taking the survey? Also, surveys don't reveal the cynicism of some voters. Not long ago, I had lunch with a pastor's widow who said, "I don't care what Trump does as long as my brokerage account grows." Her account grew plenty under Obama, but she didn't acknowledge that.
1
While surfing the Internet a month ago I came across an interesting debate between two self-identified evangelicals. One argued that Trump was a disgusting human being and that tying their fortunes to him would be a disaster, probably creating a huge backlash against evangelicals in the future. The other agreed that Trump was disgusting, but then embarked on a bizarre theological argument that God occasionally used severely flawed people for His purposes. ( He tried to cite historical examples, but most of them were inaccurate. Evangelicals are not strong on history, any more than they are on science)
3
It's all well and good to point out these statistics that show that evangelical voters are more tolerant and egalitarian, and it may make you feel better, but none of that changes the fact that these same "open minded" voters consistently vote for close-minded and bigoted candidates.
Bill Parcells is quoted as saying "You are who your record says you are". I would amend that in this case to say "You are who you vote for". Conservative Christians don't get to wash their hands from the stain of their voting records with the soap suds of statistics.
3
Immigrants and other minority status people are seen as fresh meat to be saved amongst the conservative Christian crowd. Look to proselytizing efforts in Africa and other non-white developing nations around the world if you want to understand the true motivations.
3
@Henry Exactly. I worked at a local credit union in the early 90s, right after the Iron Curtain fell. The local Full Gospel and Assembly of God churches were bringing Eastern European Pentecostals to the area. The first place the churches took the Eastern Europeans was to Social Services to sign them up to receive their checks. Then they brought them to the credit union to open accounts where there social service checks could be deposited. These legal immigrants eventually formed their own conservative congregations. And as you say, American Christian conservatives have mined Eastern Europe enough and have now moved on to other continents.
The author seems to make sense with her arguments and statistics. I have one simple question for her and for these so-called compassionate folks who disapprove of Trump and his policies: why did they vote for him, despite his wide-open, never-hidden Xenophobia, narcissism, racism, and selfishness?
In their voting for a man who is so directly opposed to Christ and his teachings, it makes me question these church-goers motivations and adherence to Christ's teachings. It is not that one merely accept some principles or beliefs in one's heart: one has to ACT on them. And it is these Christians' actions in voting for Trump that have people questioning their motives.
2
Well, Glory be. We have “research” from the Koch-supported Cato Institute that”finds” the religiously-inclined Trump supporter is more compassionate, less racist than his secular counterpart. Given the source, forgive me if I remain skeptical.
10
@WmC . . . especially since the author raises the cliched "culture wars" red flag . . . .
2
If only 67 percent of religious trump voters care about racial equality and 42 percent about reducing poverty, the bar isn't set high enough.
The fact that barely two-thirds of churchgoing voters care about racial equality and considerably less than half care about reducing poverty is not cause for any kind of celebration. It is evidence of just how badly the unholy alliance of those churches and churchgoers with the GOP and the culture wars has corrupted the gospel message.
Also missing from this piece is any discussion of churchgoers' attitudes toward and treatment of our LGBTQ fellow human beings. Those are surely even more dismal.
The answer lies not in continued engagement with religion but in true engagement with the real gospel and example of Jesus. Right now, that doesn't seem likely.
Liberals tend to be secular humanists, whether they apply this label to themselves or not. They choose Kant over Christ, but the Categorical Imperative is pretty much the same thing as the Golden Rule. Christians who truly think through Christ's teachings, listen during homilies, and actively reflect on their relationship with God will, when push comes to shove, be more tolerant of others, simply because Christ tells them to. They'll end up having a lot (but not everything) in common with their liberal secular brothers. This falls down when religion is used as a rationalization for pre-existing beliefs, instead of as a vehicle for self-discovery, growth, and reflection. This pivot happens all too often, across faiths. While it may be true that, on average, devout conservatives are more tolerant than the secular, the "religious right" have clearly been on the rationalizing side for decades, picking and choosing issues (prosperity gospel, abortion, homosexuality) that are barely or not at all core to Christian teachings, and finding bible verses to support them. In our current culture of soundbites vs. deep thinking and reflection, I fear that their star is still ascendant.
1
Anecdotally, I see a disconnect that pervades the religious right. On Sundays they carry signs with pictures of fetuses and march in protest against abortion. Fine. But in our rural community area, if a school bond measure comes up for vote, I hear the same thing from them: "I don't have kids in school, why should I have to pay for it?" The bonds never pass, not even close. So the schools continue to fall apart -literally - and they just don't care.
And don't even get me started on their feelings about guns!
11
I am an FDR liberal, I am a Quaker two Sundays ("First Days,") a month, and I attend an amazing Baptist, yes, Baptist small church when the Quakers don't meet. Peace of Christ in Round Rock, Tx. I am a member, not just attender of both traditions and find great comfort in both.
It is part of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, formed some thirty years ago when members of the Southern Baptists could no long abide by their tenets.
We ordain women, most of our leaders are women. We have had gay and transgender guest ministers speak. Communion isn't a division of in or out groups, it is for everyone in the community regardless of age, religion, sex. We don't believe in Jesus providing some kind of "salvation," but as the spirit we want to live by.
So, if you long for community, long for the teachings of Jesus w/o hatred or division, look up the CBF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_Baptist_Fellowship
2
Only the most adamant religious people find time for church. The rest are too busy with the requirement of employers to pay wages requiring 2 income households.
If only 1.5 fill time wages were needed the more liberal conservatives would become a majority of church-goers which. it would appear, to change survey results.
Although maybe not making the front pages of the Times, the churches in North and South Carolinas were an important part of the safety net during Hurricane Florence.
1
Faith is as valid a logicism as logic itself. This is the nature of Absurdism.
A person of faith, who is steadfast in their principles, generally has a more firm commitment towards living ‘right’.
A ‘believer’, in constantly needing their views reaffirmed, tends to possess principles which are ultimately, and infinitely malleable.
The data cited isn’t data. It’s a puff piece, not a new survey, by an organization that should have been described in terms of means and ends.
Anyone can cite cherry-picked numbers taken over years and anecdotal “evidence” to prove anything.
And I consider a Christian “I love everyone” to be a simple statement of a tenet of faith, not voting or even business behavior.
Remember: Trump’s repeatedly told gatherings of the white Evangelical ministry to BREAK THE TAX LAW and tell their flocks to vote for him from the pulpit! (IRS 501(c)3 non-profits, including places of worship are forbidden from political action including the above. Yes, when you submit your application for tax exemption, you Do give up your right to speak freely about matters political.
Don’t believe me, read the law yourself - and supporting case law.
6
This is the far right's attempt to normalize their far right belief's. Just check the study and check the credentials of the author.
2
Seems most comments here would rather toss the lot into a basket of deplorables than engage the population. I wonder how well that's worked in the past...
37
@Jonathan Stensberg - Again we have the dishonest, out of context, quoting of Hillary Clinton:
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?
The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
Read that last line Jonathan.
4
@Jonathan Stensberg
I was thinking the same thing.
While I share the concerns of many here that conservatives are not tolerant and compassionate enough towards others it is, in my opinion, far more dangerous and, ironically, hypocritical to simply dismiss almost half of the U.S. voting population just because they voted for a man I detest.
Liberals are despised for this kind of hypocrisy - I refuse to be one of them. Not because I don't want to be despised (you can't make everyone happy), but because I believe in tolerance.
And a nation of intolerant people is doomed.
1
@Eric W - It is difficult for me to be tolerant of a group of people who believe in myths. Here are 10 such:
1. Significantly paying down the federal debt (10% or more) has usually been good for the economy.
2. The single payer health care systems of other developed countries produce no better results at not much lower costs.
3. The very high top tax rates after WWII combined with high real (ratio of taxes actually paid to GDP) corporate taxes stifled economic growth.
4. The devastation of WWII caused the output of Europe to stay low for many (>10) years.
5. A small ratio of federal debt to GDP has always insured prosperity.
6. Inequality such as we have today (Gini about 0.50) has usually encouraged entrepreneurship thus helping the economy.
7. Our ratio of our corporate taxes actually paid to GDP is among the highest of all developed countries.
8. Since WWI, the cause of severe inflation in developed countries has usually been the printing of money.
9. As a percentage of GDP, today's federal debt service is the highest in many years.
10. Inequality such as we have today is an aberration; the history of capitalism has shown that periods like 1946 - 1973 with low inequality are the norm.
I identify as a human being and therefore find common ground and belonging with other human beings. No religion necessary.
9
Once you lose your religion, you will begin to gain your faith.
9
A theocracy with a human face is still a theocracy. I don’t really care about the feelings of evangelicals toward me - a Jew and a free-thinker - but I do care about their political clout. They may be kindly disposed toward individuals but their overall system of beliefs is antithetical to all I hold dear: science, individual freedom and secularism. If you insist that abortion is murder, that the universe is six thousand years old, and that Jesus helps you find parking spots, you are my ideological enemy, regardless of how many hours you volunteer in your church or how many homeless you serve in your soup kitchen.
9
You can provide me with all the statistics and numbers you want, but as long as these so-called Christians vote for Trump and the Congressional Republicans, who are promoting the most un-Christian agenda possible, they remain, in my view, spineless hypocrites. They simply do not deserve to be called Christians.
10
Unless< missed something here, this begs the question of why then did these Christians vote for Trump? And do they still support him? Is it all about money? Or is it simply the Biblical axion to render under Caesar what is Caesar's?
1
"Churchgoing Trump voters have more favorable feelings toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims and immigrants compared with nonreligious Trump voters." Wow. That is a pretty low bar. Better than Nazis would even be better? The votes speak for themselves. "Evangelical" has taken on a whole new meaning. To support this or that single issue means nothing. The enthusiastic support for Trump is the bottom line. Holding your nose w hile you vote for Trump is no excuse.
8
The notion there may be common ground is pretty thin, simply because the poll did not poll Democrats, who still have vastly different values, even from the slightly less odious religious right. Both groups are still a long, long way from the pluralistic, liberty-and-justice-for-all foundation of the left. I am reminded of a sarcastic WWII era saying that my father, a WWII refugee from that part of eastern Europe that had the privilege of being invaded by both Hilter and Stalin: "The nice thing about Nazis" (as opposed to the Soviets "is that at least they talk to you before the shoot you."
Yeah, varying degrees of totalitarian mindsets don't really give much space for common ground, because the foundational values are so radically different. Great. One part of the Republican base is slightly less virulent. I'm not sure that's much cause for celebration.
6
You can twist and turn all this data in support of Evangelicals but the fact remains they are hypocrites when it comes to making a moral decision to support someone so vile and immoral as Donald Trump just to attack abortion rights.
12
Living in the buckle of the Bible Belt, I can attest that the most racist, hateful, intolerant statements I've ever heard were from mild-mannered Southern Baptists, and they did it with a smile on their face and a personal conviction that there was nothing wrong with what they were saying because their interpretation of scripture justifies it.
There are indeed moderate and liberal evangelicals, but I sure wish they were more vocal in calling out their extremist brethren.
212
@JB Having spent much time down south, I will say that my experience mirrors JB's. If one ever disputed their interpretation of the Bible, they will just smile and pray for you.
2
@JB
I disagree that there are moderate and liberal evangelicals. Moderate and liberal are mutually exclusive from evangelical.
The definition of liberal is to listen to and consider the views of others and discard traditional values. I know of no evangelicals that would or could fit that definition of liberal. I would also add that I have never met an evangelical who would even accept that definition of liberal.
And I know a lot of evangelicals.
1
@MrC - I should clarify that the term evangelical doesn't mean what it used to. In terms of someone who's just called to evangelize and "spread the word," that doesn't necessarily have a lib/con connotation. But considering the extreme right kinda owns that word now, I agree with your point in that context.
Perhaps the personal "ick factor" that religious conservatives feel toward any thought of sexual deviation from the biblical norm has just been blown way out of proportion by the LGBTQ hysteria. Just because someone is creeped out by the thought of committing sex acts you like doesn't mean they loathe your very being or want you to be marginalized and discriminated against. I think they just want you too stop talking about it! I think this writer has discovered that liberals are painting with just as broad a brush as conservatives. Just because someone isn't exactly in lock-step with everything you believe doesn't mean they're the enemy. These "liberalized conservatives" were always there. They haven't changed... it's the liberals that might just be maturing.
No, it's not. Many liberals have moved beyond the constrictions of religion, or at least do not use them as a cudgel to beat those with differing beliefs. It is the evangelical who needs to mature to join the modern world.
2
Religion is a matter of faith as they say, and as such is irrational. It is not surprising that religious people say things that are not consistent with their actions since they have a make believe view of reality. The mistake here is to believe that they mean what they say when you ask them a question. They say they have good feelings about minorities right after they profess a belief in a magic man in the sky.
There has been a lot of this in the NYTs lately, this trying to put meaning behind the political stances of the religious as if they are collectively making rational decisions about Trump and his apparent lack of Christian beliefs. They are not. There is nothing rational about the religious, except that perhaps a belief in magic allows them to sleep better at night because their imagination is less likely to run wild and cause them angst. Other than that, I can see no advantage to religiosity, and no rationality. What I see are people who are more willingly lead by fools, and thus our current situation not only with Trump but the entirety of congress including the GOP and the vast majority of DFL. They all seem certain that favoring the wealthy and powerful is good for us slaves.
"The more frequently Trump voters attend church, the more they support offering citizenship to unauthorized immigrants and making the immigration process easier, and the more opposed they become to the border wall."
What a contradiction!! Trump voters who support making the immigration process easier? And yet they voted for Trump? This is a cotton candy analysis, full of air with no substance.
4
This may all be true, but so what? Expressing concern about racial equality and immigrant children while supporting this president so he can flood the judiciary with right wing religious activists is the very definition hypocrisy. Having more moderate views than white nationalists and kkk members is meaningless without backing one's views with actions. In this case that means not supporting or voting for a man like Trump. Attitudes are platitudes.
2
So you polled all 9 non-church going conservatives in the USA to complete this study?
5
Ross Douthat addressed this research in a recent column. But he couldn't admit that conservatives who attend church are more liberal than those who don’t. To him, the L-word is a pejorative. But it happens to be the most accurate adjective in this case.
1
Another bedtime story from the Cato gang designed to disarm critics of the brazen and growing hypocrisy within the Evangelical envelope. Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does. Cato is telling us that Evangelicals have constructed a useful Christian God with two faces. A God which look approvingly and benignly down at both religious and secular conservatism. Hooray for conservatism.
3
Another pathetic attempt to make the "religious right" (there's an oxymoron for you) less complicit in the moral decay of their president. It's been done to death (see Ross Douthat, every column). We are not buying it. Until this election I was a non denominational Christian. Now I am completely agnostic, because I refuse to be linked to these "Christian" phonys in any way.
5
Sometimes cognitive dissonance is helpful, sometimes it isn't. I don't understand how someone can believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God yet ignore half of it; but I am thankful when the half being ignored is the parts about slavery and genocide. I am not thankful when that cognitive dissonance allows people to say they support equality of rights but then vote for a lying racist who wants to strip healthcare from the poor.
3
Come to think of it then what is the difference between a liberal and a churchgoing conservative? I assume the latter equally do not wish more inequality either?
this article strikes me , well like a huge big ugly LIE. yes i said it. i am accusing the Cato institute and their backers of hiding white supremacist ideas cloaked as love towards others.
i admit my mind at 65 is rather closed also. but i dont LIE to the nation and the world with a bible in my hand. The religious mindset is not needed in the modern world. Science has proven religion to false. as a secular person the sky man that controls our world has been shown to be a fallacy time and time again.
4
I am surrounded by that demographic here in Texas and trust me that is not the truth.
5
Whenever the topic of religion comes up in the New York Times, many if not most of those commenting seem to confuse rabid, narrow-minded, fundamentalism with all of Christianity. I understand why this might be, because those fundamentalists make the most noise in public. But the fundamentalists ignore the most basic tenets of the Christian gospel, among them:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)
"(Jesus) said (of an adulterous woman) unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. "(John 8:7)
"You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5)
These words of Jesus are deeply socializing and humane, and a church is where they can be taught and re-taught to great social benefit. I am sad to see that sort of church fading away as fundamentalists misrepresent the gospel and alienate reasonable people.
In the main line Protestant churches (Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, UCC, etc.), this IS what is taught to congregants whose politics are all over the lot. Recently, even gay people are welcome, which is why I, a sixty-something single gay man, can find fellowship pretty much weekly as part of the larger community, while looking to the prayer of confession to tamp down my own angry and self-interested impulses.
118
@D I Shaw Despite their discipline and reputation for being uber religious- Catholics are not fundamentalists either. Obviously they weren't scriptural enough for protestants you've mentioned! It has created a culture where those in the pews can regard the pastoral orders from the church with a wink and a nod to one another while they continue to live their lives in the real world and with kindness and tolerance and generosity to others. This is one major upside of papal infallibility- if Pope Francis says "love one another" it doesn't matter what the local bishops have told you the bible says! It's his way or the highway.
@D I Shaw
You are correct, but part of the problem is thanks to the media, and the GOP, Christianity has become associated with the evangelical Christians, in large part because while mainstream and progressive Christians don't share the views of the evangelicals, they also have ceded the floor in the public square to them. Put it this way, only about 20% of Catholics are hard core, support the church, hate lGBT people, etc, following the party line of the Bishops, the problem is the 80% of Catholics who are a lot more moderate, ignore the damage that their Bishops and orthodox brothers and sisters do, because the conservative ones are annointed as representing "all catholics". I have heard this same complaint from religious people who are not fundamentalist, that they are tarred with the same brush, and when I ask them why they don't speak out, denounce the haters and such, they say "they are our brothers and sisters in christ, it is wrong to denounce them openly, that is a matter between us"...which basically means "we won't speak out, no matter how bad these people act"
1
@D I Shaw, I just want to say thank you. Many NYT commenters also disregard those of us who belong to the religious left. It's important for those of us with common goals to come together.
2
"It seems church teachings can curb tribalistic impulses".
What tribalistic impulses? The notion that people have "tribalistic impulses" that have to be curbed is part of the "identity politics" fad among intellectuals, who simplify their job by sorting Americans into various "identities" and then assume that that affects their behavior. Identity used to mean what made a person unique, not what groups they belong to.
Didn't identity politics create enough trouble in the 2016 election?
I would like to know who are the famous intellectuals representing the Christian Left in America today. Who has replaced Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich and Martin Luther King? Tillich thought that Jesus was the first socialist. Does no one among progressive American Christians agree with him?
3
Nothing but bubbe meises top to bottom but it looks as if the country is headed in the right direction by walking away from them.
Thank goodness!
So what do we conclude? Perhaps that there is a difference between real Christians, those who actually pay attention to the teachings of Jesus, and the hundreds of fake christians who dominate out TV screens and our political dialog. They are little more than political opportunists, enriching themselves at the expense of their followers, amassing power to aggrandize their own egos.
Real Christians are humble, caring people who live the gospels daily. And they come in both conservative and liberal flavors.....
1
Polls, polls and more polls. They seem to be everywhere and used for everything.
Perhaps this Cato Institute poll reflects what this author says it does. We all know how a question is framed and who the "random" responders are directs the poll to where one wants it to go.
A good example would be a question on religious freedom. The religious would define that as being able, in the public sphere, to deny services to those they do not care for. The non-religious would see the question as being allowed to worship as you wish and stay out of the public sphere. I would also say answering a poll question is not the same as living the answer.
No, this op-ed does not sway me from the idea that the religious Republican supporters are hypocrites who support dishonorable men who forget their oath to their Country and what it stands for in order to have power and wealth. Their support for Trump say's it all.
2
What sort of quality work does the Cato Institute perform? This piece discussed a the interesting, though not surprising, studies showing churchgoing (not just evangelical-claiming, but actual butts in seats church attending) conservatives have more moderate views about immigration and race than non churchgoing conservatives.
THEN citing no support whatsoever, concludes "some on the left" incorrectly assume BECAUSE churchgoers are less accepting of LGBT people, they are also less accepting of racial and religious minorities. Note well the author does not even bother to tell us "less accepting than whom." So Cato makes both an incomplete and unsupported strawman argument in the conclusion. This from Cato's Director of polling and research. So are we to assume other Cato fellows' work is even more poorly thought through?
1
It is unfortunate that Christians have allowed a political right wing among them to steal the word "Christian" as a ruse to gain political support. I'm happy to be reminded that all Christians are not as bad as the "Christian Right" has made itself to be.
There is a lot to critique about people of faith and their frailties, abuses, and inconsistencies. Once one comes "out" as a practitioner, it is inevitable that these will show up in smaller yet real personal faults and more public ways such as in the scandals of the Catholic Church, intolerance of extreme orthodox sects of Judaism and the violence done in the name of Islam. Yet, the secular culture does not have any equivalent moral code, practice or discipline with the same appeal to common good, and higher and more just ways of living. Left to our own devices, absent such belief systems, codes, aspirations for meaning and discipline, we humans tend to drift toward chaotic self interest and zero sum cynicism.
So, among a group that's 89% nominally Christian, only 42% could be bothered to rank reducing poverty as a very important social concern. These folks couldn't muster a bare majority to agree with a major tenet of the Gospels. Ms. Ekins seems to be arguing "Christianity, not that bad!" to secular moderates. As a religious liberal, I see evidence of "bad Christians!"
1
48% of trump voters don't go to church. Consider the inverse of these polls and the implications regarding the true values that drive them...
"he who has ears... let him hear"
The survey results don't seriously plumb the racial attitudes of the respondents. Asking people how warmly they feel about this or that group probably gives you a better sense of what they believe is socially acceptable than what they actually personally think, much less how they act. According to her survey, 60% of Trump voters attend church "Never," "Seldom," or "1 or 2 times a year." Trump's church-going voters are somewhat higher-income and more educated than these supposedly secular voters. The fact that that more of them claim to have "warm" feelings towards Black people likely only means that they think saying otherwise makes them look bad.
A more robust set of survey questions might have produced a more accurate measure of actual racial feelings. At the end of the day, though, the real measure is how people act. And the one action that all Trump voters have in common is that they voted for a racist demagogue for president. That there is some variation among them in how warmly or cooly they feel towards this group or that is of less interest to me than their willingness to inflict this hateful man on their neighbors of color.
The last thing progressives want is for people to disengage from religion. Some atheists are proselytizing and demeaning religion usually on the basis of science. That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
All religions have their own way of teaching us to treat our neighbor as ourself. That's what is sorely needed in today's fast-moving world of competition. When you have left religion behind, you must look to your conscience to guide you to honor your neighbor.
So we need secular humanists as well as devout religionists to band together to create a more perfect world. It depends on compassion.
1
“Conservatives who attend church have more moderate views than secular conservatives on issues like race, immigration and identity.” That’s what the polls say? What does reality say? Look at all of the church attending conservatives politicians who have a choke-hold on our government and judicial system, who want to build a wall, who refuse to denounce white supremacy, who want to take away our healthcare and a woman’s control of her own body, who want to make the rich even richer – who are willing to defy every known moral tenet of Christianity in order to get re-elected and wealthier. And what of all the churchgoers who support and keep re-electing these conservatives?
Where’s the compassionate middle? Lost somewhere in a labyrinth of statistics and in the deep recesses of our imaginations. File it under “fantasy.”
2
Sorry, but it doesn't matter what religious conservatives think. As long as they keep voting for a party that is increasingly anti-poor, anti-immigrant and pro-gun, they empower the worst of the secular conservatives to deploy their nefarious agenda. The way they feel comes brings no comfort to the hordes that are being discriminated against.
Only when they start electing a party that stands for noble christian values other than abortion, such as caring for the poor, will they become part of the solution. In the meantime, they are part of the problem that chokeshold the country.
5
I really don't care about anything any member of the Religious Right has to say.
They've lined up in support of a man whose thoughts, words, actions and deeds violate every single religious principle and doctrine. Fake Christian Sarah Sanders stands there and lies right along with Trump - I wonder if she even remembers the 10 Commandments, since she breaks at least one every time she speaks.
There is no evidence anyone in the Trump White House even understands the Golden Rule -“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Freedom of Religion includes the right to be free of any religion, and from what the Christians supporting Trump show us, we are much better off with none.
They say the Lord helps those who help themselves, and I think many, many Americans will be proving that by voting Democratic on November 6th.
I know I certainly will be.
2
All persuasive arguments except that the overwhelming majority of Christians will still vote for Trump in 2020 without a moment's hesitation.
1
I believe it all comes down to abortion. The religious right want abortion to be a criminal act, that is to make abortion illegal again. They seem to think they are saving babies. If they insist on making abortion illegal they must agree to raise and financially support any children born because of the denial of abortion. We already have too many homeless, hungry and uneducated children in the world. The decision to have an abortion belongs to the mother only. No one wants abortion but it must remain available to those who decide it is the best option. A woman who wants an abortion will find a way to get one, legal or not. Legal is safer and in the long run more compassionate. Now more than ever we must maintain separation of church and state.
141
@William Robards
Promoting contraception would help decrease abortions dramatically. You have to pick one!
@William Robards "... they must agree to raise and financially support any children born because of the denial of abortion." Sorry, it would be totally immoral to force women to undergo unwanted pregnancies and then give up the baby for adoption. (Note that if you give birth, it's a "baby" - as opposed to what happens if you have an abortion at seven weeks gestational time.) And if I were giving up a child for adoption (which I can't imagine), there is no way I would give it up to some right winger lacking any moral compass or compassion. (Being against abortion isn't having a "moral compass" - it's trying to control womens' lives.)
1
@William Robards
You are partly correct.
Abortion is a keystone, but race is the cornerstone.
Abortion was not the issue in the days of Abraham Lincoln. But race was.
1
Keeping in mind that the Cato Institute is conservative organization that promotes conservative values. I read this with a very critical eye.
1
The Cato Institute? Really? And does the Times expect us to lend credence to anything that originates from the Koch Bros. house organ? I give Ms. Ekins credit - her white-wash job of evangelicals is well written and might even be convincing if one was unfamiliar with the bitter, entrenched and dedicated efforts of religious conservatives to thwart any and every advance of equality for LGBT people. When Ms. Ekins writes "Because of the L.G.B.T. culture wars, many incorrectly assume that if conservative churchgoers are less accepting of sexual minorities, ..." Less accepting? Well, that's one way of putting it. Disgust and bigoted hatred thinly masked as "love" would be another way. I am not prepared to grant credit for humane values to people who define me and people like me as unworthy of equal rights.
2
The Cato Institute is surely not a politically bipartisan polling and research organization. It is an American libertarian think tank and a public policy research organization headquartered in Washington, D.C..
It's web site (https://www.cato.org) states that it is dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries. Budget (FYE March 2015): Revenue: $37.3 million; Expenses: $29.4 million.
3
Interesting.
.
Unfortunately the Religious Right is also full of other contradictions. For example: They call themselves “pro life,” but only in so much as they hate abortion. If you suggest to them that life is much more than just birth, and that if they were really pro life they would support universal healthcare and robust public education for all - they accuse you of being a thief who wants higher taxes.
.
And don’t get me started on their stance towards gay adoption. Um hello: if you want to lessen abortions - and I actually agree with you on that - maybe barring an entire segment of the US population from adopting isn’t the right way to go about it!
2
I applaud the Cato study. It reflects what I see in faith communities in both liberal and conservative regions in the country. Most of my friends are secular humanists, a category I identified with most of my adult life, who fail to understand the differences among Catholics, evangelicals and mainstream Protestants. Not all churchgoers are snake handlers. Services I attended in Cincinnati, no bastion of liberalism, revealed a mega church of amazing humanity and sympathy, hewing to the words of Christ and putting their money where their prayers are by helping the less fortunate at home and around the world. The multiracialism of the congregation was astounding. They have accepted that spirituality and reason go hand in hand where so many intellectuals and nonbelievers embrace only the latter. I maintain church goers are more genuinely caring about Enlightenment values.
While this opinion piece strives to convince us that church-going helps give participants a sense of belonging, they still support a man who regularly breaks the admonitions against killing, lying, thievery, adultery and loving one's neighbor.
I suppose he does honor his mother and father.
Keeping one of the New Testament's Six Commandments is apparently enough for his religious supporters.
85
@CW, as the man in question did his level best to cut his own siblings out of their father's last will and testament, and apparently has never apologized for these offenses against the memory of their parents, I'd say honoring his father and mother is questionable at best.
1
It is encouraging to read Ms. Ekins' report that Evangelical Republicans share liberal values on immigration, racial and religious tolerance with Democratic voters. In the next two months we will see how strongly their beliefs will be transformed into votes that result in the defeat of Republican congressional and state candidates whose policies, anti-immigrant, vote suppression and the like, are contrary to their religious beliefs.
1
Emily Ekins seems to be saying that religious conservatives are more reasonable and just than secular conservatives, which tends to indicate that beliefs are a good thing. What Ms. Ekins overlooks is the fact that beliefs - all beliefs - cause the problems in the first place. It's hard to imagine a world without beliefs, but this will come about if we are to survive as a species. In the near future, AI scientists will program the human mind in a computer, and this will be based on a "survival" algorithm. When this is done, we will have irrefutable proof of how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about just exactly what is supposed to survive, creating a mind working de facto toward its own destruction. At that point, we can begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
This rings true. But where does this get us? Plenty of Trump supporters grudgingly acknowledge that he lies, is overly motivated by greed, and is not someone they like. But if they vote for him anyway while remaining "nice" people the effect is the same. Suffering for millions.
3
A very interesting and thought-provoking observation of Ms. Elkins. Perhaps the practicing conservatives are more closely aligned to the Ten Commandments, detached from the presumably divine dictates and that make the foundation of Eternal Morals of the society. In such a view of religion, the name of God in the First Commandment can be replaced by Eternal Morals, and all the rest relegated to the eternal struggle of Good and Evil.
Assuming the data to be valid, the question of priorities remains.
When the church-goers cast their ballots, is their priority the Christian ideals of taking care of the poor, the sick, the stranger, the imprisoned, the least among us? Of treating all as brothers, as God's children?
Or do less humane and generous constraints and interests carry the day?
15
Well now that Roe v Wade will be overturned and abortion can be criminalized, maybe the Christian Right will turn its focus to poverty -- to care for the millions of additional babies that will be born to low-income mothers, right?
Uh, no, you know the answer is no. It's real easy to answer a public opinion survey, but the Southern Baptists haven't cared a whisker about poverty for 100 years, and they're not about to start now.
After the Republican Congress has enacted a national ban on abortion, the next two things on the agenda will be to begin the fight against birth control and start bringing cases to Republican judges to undermine, and eventually overturn, Obergefell v. Hodges so that being gay can once again be criminalized.
The Christian Right doesn't exist to take care of the poor and vulnerable. It exists so its rich, sanctimonious preachers can demolish the First Amendment, pay no taxes and rule the United States.
31
Amen!
1
Although it may seem comforting that church going conservatives have more moderate views about racial equality and reducing poverty, that only 67% were favorable towards racial equality and even fewer for reducing poverty is disturbing. The Bible and the teachings of Jesus are clear on these topics and less than 100% leaves these churches and Christians falling short of what they claim to believe. The American church, particularly the white churches, are leading the way for Christianity to become obsolete in American culture and the leaders and church members can only look to themselves for this failure. The Christian faith is incredibly powerful but sadly the anemic church and those in public who claim "to be Christian" are not the "good news" (evangel) for most Americans.
6
The Cato Institute, funded by the Koch Brothers Foundation, has found that church-going Republicans really do support certain bedrock Christian values.
I am sure this was a scientific, independent Cato study for which the answers weren't a foregone conclusion, just as sure as I am that those physicians who are paid handsomely (and secretly) by pharmaceutical companies do not know the results of clinical trials before they begin.
Of course, Congressional Republicans have done a similar unbiased and thorough study of Brett Kavanaugh's background and qualifications. And Senator Inhofe himself disproved climate change by conducting an experiment with snowballs on the Senate floor.
Science, statistics, studies, education, and religion rule the world of the GOP.
19
Last year a group called LifeWay Research did an interesting study contrasting evangelical identity with evangelical beliefs, the latter a short list of strictly theological beliefs. The study found that only 45% of those who self-identified as evangelicals agreed with the list of beliefs, while many African-Americans who agreed with the list of beliefs refused to identify as evangelicals. Those agreeing with the list of beliefs also included a somewhat larger proportion of democrats. There are indeed liberal democrats who are evangelical by belief---I am one. The tendency to accept the Sessions-Pence version of Christianity as representative of all Christians actually helps them drown out our dissenting voices. I'm going to stand by my faith and my political views regardless.
17
The "conservatives" (I hate calling them conservatives since they have so little in common with traditional conservatives--Adam Smith to Buckley--I prefer right wing extremists) who go to a church are a bit more humane than those who do not. That fact would seem almost intuitive, and it is unsurprising that a study would reveal it. It also is not a redeeming character for the evangelicals. It more demonstrates that the non-church going right wing extremists are really low on the sociability scale.
16
Perhaps. But they still GOP, regardless of policies or results of those policies. Regardless.
10
I’m a liberal athiest, but I think there is something to the argument that religion makes people more moral. Religion, especially more universalist forms of Christianity, gives one a moral code that makes one look beyond oneself and one’s own people. Some secular liberals have managed to replace the moral code of religion with a secular moral code that emphasizes treating everyone the same, and some secular conservatives and libertarians have adopted a secular moral code of minding your own business, but as the rise of Trump shows, secularization can be dangerous among people who lack a moral code to replace the one provided by religion.
10
@G.K
I'm a liberal athiest too. Nevertheless I have absolutely no problem saying that Jesus guy had a lot of good ideas about how people should treat each other, and you could do a lot worse than to try following what he taught. He certainly didn't teach social or political conservatism.
25
@Steve
Why should one adhere to what any one person says or taught, why shouldn't one come to his or her own conclusions ? Einstein, although a great admirer of Newton, didn't blindly follow his teachings, but used them as a foundation to form his own description of the universe. And, of course, there were many physicists who challenged Einsteins pronouncements.
@G.K As a sociological or philosophical claim regarding such a link between morality and religion this is very questionable. Those who profess to be "values voters" and most concerned with issues such as abortion, namely, the religious right, kept this election close enough to give the abomination in the White House an electoral college win. And they continue to support him.
4
Part of the difference noted may be rooted in conservative churchgoers being drawn to the right by what they consider personal moral issues, e.g., abortion, homosexuality, rather than by issues of identity and nationalism.
Still, while liberals like me may have some views in common with those churchgoers, I have a hard time reconciling Christian religious beliefs with their willingness to give Trump a pass on his lewd behavior, misogyny, bullying, and bigotry. They may not "like" those aspects of his presence and policy, but are all too willing to simply look the other way in order to get their agenda through.
75
Do anyone else find these contrarian pollster "essays" tedious? Sure, it looks interesting, but neglects the qualitative aspects of religious conservatism, i.e. the God-ordained righteousness. Anyone with conservative Christians in their family knows this - you can't debate with God. That's what progressives don't like about them.
37
@Rob Crawford
I debate with God all the time: She tries to convince me that He exists, and I argue withe Him that She doesn't ;-)
2
@Rob Crawford
About "God-ordained righteousness".... were it so simple
to discern, we would all agree, wouldn't we? The debate is not with God, but with our interpretations of his righteousness and his will. Now there is plenty to discuss!
1
@Rob Crawford Fortunately, we know how to debate with facts.
2
Judging from the comments posted at the time I write, Ms. Elkins is not finding much fertile ground for the claims arising from her polling. As a dyed-in-the-wool progressive who is also a confessing and practicing Christian, I'd like to take heart in learning that there is a sliver of compassionate almost-allies and middle-grounders among the self-identified religious conservatives. I share the deep skepticism of some of the other commenters regarding Cato Institute research generally, regarding the gap between attitudes--oh, so, piously espoused--and sustained political action, and regarding the very apparent hegemony of the NON-compassionate, utterly inhumane and questionably 'Christian' stated values and behaviors of the more dominant segment of religious conservatives in the U.S.
14
Two things. One, "secular" can be the wrong term for people who don't go to church. Many of my relatives do not attend church regularly but are intensely religious. They watch sermons on TV, listen to radio, etc. Trump invested early on in the Christian Broadcasting Network; don't pretend that it's not significant, just because a lot of its viewers might not belong to a regular church. In my relatives' case, they are regularly steeped in all the most toxic forms of conservative Christianity, without any mitigating factors that day-to-day participation in a community might, it seems, provide.
Second, it frankly doesn't matter if church-going Trump voters express slightly more moderate views on these issues. They made their bargain. They will accept anything- ANYTHING- in return for overturning Roe v. Wade, and in return for power. They continue to hold to that bargain and to vote like it, and so I really do not care (do you?) if they claim to do so while holding their noses.
131
@M, you're right that "secular" is probably not the correct term. But watching/listening to sermons via TV/internet/radio doesn't provide the same community experience as physically going to church and mingling with fellow congregants.
1
@SDC I know. My point is that one can absorb toxic ideologies through them. And these seem to be even more toxic when not mediated by the physical experience of community.
I have read several articles on this particular report and I am always struck by the fact that these people who have more moderate views towards the poor and people of other races and ethnicities are quite willing to throw those people under the bus when they vote. I would really like Ms. Ekins to do more research on that.
80
There is an argument to be made that the American evangelical caucus is, in effect, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican party. It has many of the characteristics of an activist wing of a political movement and should, in my view, be treated as such.
One could go on about the hypocrisy, consequentialism, and bigotry of this theologised political organisation, but I will limit myself to two points. Firstly, whatever it may claim, it is not ‘pro-life’: it is pro-pregnancy. In a country in which it is conservatively estimated that 21% of children live below the federal poverty threshold, it would appear that evangelicals’ commitment to life grinds to an abrupt halt round about the neonatal stage. If Mr Trump and his evangelical fanboys truly want to make America great, they could do worse than starting right there.
The second point is that evangelicals demonstrate both an overweening sense of their own importance and a stubborn refusal to engage with reality. Recently, an American evangelical tried to tell me that it was only the election of Donald Trump that had saved Christianity in the US from the biggest persecution since Diocletian. I didn’t buy it. There are places in the world where simply being a Christian can indeed be a death-sentence: the United States of America is not one of them. I suggested to him that there was a difference between ‘being persecuted’ and ‘not getting your way all the time’. Sadly, the distinction fell on deaf ears.
157
@Aelwyd Smartest response in this thread. Gratitude. Evangelicals self-present as privileged, spiritually correct and ethically superior. Their "views" on tolerance are always cut with a patronizing moral supremacy: whatever reservations they have about "lifestyles" (LGBTQ people) or "life" (reproductive rights) are offered as God-given annotations to secular social agendas. They find no wiggle room, and refuse to negotiate with changing community standards. Though they aren't obviously confrontational, they are aggressive in defending their rigidity -- which they frame as biblical truth. They consider themselves "compassionate" because they don't care how compassion is defined by anyone else. It's nothing short of theological arrogance, and it's decidedly un-American.
13
@Aelwyd That's the new party line: a "war on Christians." Even though they've got their slogans on our money and in our formerly secular "pledge of allegiance," and every legislative session from Congress to city council opens with an invocation pf the magical heavens. Of course the "war" narrative is a lie, but it's repeatedly endlessly on the evangelical radio stations that overpowers NPR for drivers passing through valley country. And at Falwell "University" and its many counterparts.
4
@Hal Corley
Thanks for the thought-provoking response. As someone who counts himself a friend, and whose links with the US go back nearly 40 years, your last statement is the one I find myself pondering. For something to be “un-American” implies that there must also be something valued, something shared, above all something worth fighting for, that is. Something, in other words, that exemplifies who and what you are; what it means to be an American today.
I confess myself concerned: there seems currently to be a great divide not just in American politics but in the American polity itself, and one which it is hard to know how to bridge. From elementary schools to universities, urban areas to rural, town hall to Congress, red states to blue, I wish there could be a national conversation; and in each of those (and many other) contexts, I would ask the same questions: who are “We the People”? What does it mean to be a ‘people’? What makes us a ‘We’, as opposed to a collection of mutually antipathetic groups increasingly estranged and in conflict? Is what unites us stronger, better, more inspiring – more worth it – than what divides?
Do we really want to be “We the People”; and if so, what are we going to do about it?
It's not for a foreigner like myself to suggest answers to these questions; all I would say is that it is becoming increasingly clear that answers must be found.
The author's statistics and conclusions should not surprise us. Religious people may be conservative or progressive as well as religious. When religious people make social and political choices, they reconcile their religious values with conflicting social, economic and political objectives. Sometimes religious values win out and sometimes conflicting social. economic and political objectives drive their decisions. Religious people are human and like all of us they are loathe to admit that their choices and actions are inconsistent with their religious values.
6
"President Trump has been a regular speaker at recent Values Voter Summits, and for this year’s event, he will send Vice President Mike Pence to rally the religious right." I suppose that one could say that President Trump, who has no values and who apparently didn't gain any from his past visits to the Value Voters Summits, is no longer interested in that group. Of course, the real reason for his non-attendance, as Ms. Ekins points out, is that he probably realizes that the "Values" members increasingly have doubts about supporting no-values Trump. In true fashion for Trump, it is just another political move to turn out his base. As usual, it's all about him.
8
"They think the religious right has compromised its Christian values in order to attain political power for Republicans."
That should be, "in order to attain political power *along with* Republicans."
They were going in the same direction, fellow travelers.
However, not everybody who goes to church is an utterly cynical non-believer. Some who sing the songs also take the words to heart. When that is not the politician, it may well be his mother, his wife, his children.
It will be some politicians too, though we know not so many and not so deeply influenced because they are, well, filthy politicians taking money and trading favors for power and prestige.
We should not forget that the anti-slavery movement was founded in churches. Many moral things have come from church congregations, even if it has not been many of the politicians in the family.
There have even been a few like Lincoln, who actually are worthy, though to be honest like Abe he was always the exception.
6
More moderate, meaning less extreme, is hardly promising as a way to view the disconnects between these church goers and what the president feels empowered to do because of their failure to speak out against a president who in no way embodies anything remotely Christian or Christ-like.
32
On race and immigration church going conservatives may be more tolerant than secular conservatives but no where does Elkins comment on which group is less misogynist.
It seems all conservatives fear and thus despise the increasing independence of women, women in the professions and board rooms and particularly women who feel that their sexual lives are theirs.
So Elkins which group mostly favors reproductive freedom for women? None you say? It is as I thought.
38
@Edward Blau Indeed, it was selective information in the article/ poll
2
@Edward Blau Where are you finding all these conservatives (I’m assuming you really mean all Republicans), who fear and despise women in professions and board rooms? I don’t know ANY men like that at all! I’m 75 so many of the wives of men I know either have never worked outside the home or did so only until they had children. But these same women have served on the boards of not-for-profits, schools and colleges, side by side business men in the community and often these boards were chaired by a woman . They have often been the la leader in their church. And these men were very proud of their wives contributions, which were substantial.
These same men now have daughters in their 30’s and 40’s who work in various professions and in high level management in business and they’re proud as punch of these daughters.
Do some not believe that abortion is right? Some feel that way, and yes, most would not like it if these same daughters had lots of casual sex and were also quite careless about their use of birth control. But they in no way see this as “ controlling” women’s bodies - it’s just their personal value system about certain behaviors. Are they not allowed that? Apparently they are not. If their personal and religious values are different than yours, they’re women-fearing misogynists.
1
When those who are against abortion, for whatever reason, choose not to have one they are exercising their personal right. No liberal has a problem with that. When they try to tell other women they cannot legally exercise their right to choose, they most certainly ARE misogynists attempting to control women, and are to be fought tooth and nail.
2
A piece in the opinion section making it sound like religious conservatives are liberal written by a research fellow at the Cato institute, a think tank founded by the Koch brothers.
Let's assume the results are valid... meaning people answered the poll in the numbers described and that the people chosen for the poll were random enough, and that the questions were not framed in a biased way (unlikely).
Even so all this says to me is that conservative Republicans who go to church are bigger hypocrites that ones who don't. They like to talk big on ethics but do nothing tangible, even do the opposite and support people taking up the same positions. Look at the support of Trump in Republican primaries. Look at the current scandals rocking multiple faiths and churches. Now look at how the pastors at mega-churches live. What greater hypocrites exist than those guys?
196
@Yak - Righto! Throw in that this survey is based on religionists self-reporting that on Sunday they just love blacks, hispanics, asians (apparently not so much with those icky gays). Then on Tuesday, they vote for Republicans who do everything they can to suborn the validity and rights of those minorities. Anecdotally, like my church-goin' sis who prays for their souls on her faith-healing lord's day, then complains that her tax money goes to buying health insurance for poor people.
The only people I've ever known who truly tried to follow Jesus' teachings, weren't christians. But then, neither was Jesus.
4
The first thing to in dealing with any issue is to stop taking religion seriously. Religion is just a fiction behind which conservatives hide their bad intent. People need to stop falling for the fraud.
62
@Jamila Kisses Serious atheists need to look past the fictional aspects of religion. There are the well-known false stories, but they're important, but they are only a part of it. It's probably too bad we call it religious "belief", because that suggests that it is just a collection of false facts that can be disproved. But there is more too it than that. We also have to talk about religious experience, and religious commitment, and religious identity... (and in many cases, bad intent)
2
@John Bergstrom - Change your use of the word "religious" to "spiritual" in your last sentence and you've got something.
People invented religions, with their simple lists of rules on how to be "saved", because the real path to Spiritual Awakening is just too darn rigorous. Being present in the wonder of on-going creation, remaining conscious of our breathe, dispassionately observing the silly antics of our egos - and doing so every. single. moment. is stunningly difficult (for me, anyway).
Religion is an impediment to our spiritual process, sez' I. As soon as we choose a particular dogma, we set out to prove that our dogma's better than yours' and that our god can whip the snot out of your god on every given Sunday. Sort of like pro football with less beer.
"God is too big for just one religion…" Michael Franti
Colin, your comment is exceptionally generous, given that the article originates with the Cato Institute, that spawn of Charles Koch. If conservative churchgoers are as benevolent as claimed, the news has yet to register with the Trump maladministration, which would surely have trimmed its sails to fit the "finding" that its base is compassionate toward refugees, in favor of racial tolerance, and concerned for the separated children of undocumented immigrants. In fact, Trump and his subalterns have intensified their efforts to defame, deprive, and immiserate refugees, racial minorities, and undocumented children...with assistance from the media, whose attention span is even shorter than the president's. "Resolutions" from right-wing religionists decrying the harm done to vulnerable people is vacuous by design when directed toward a government that fawns on Evangelicals and their dictates.
31
@Retired Tax Mechanic The provenance of the study (Cato) actually surprised me. Libertarianism is secular, always has been. Ayn Rand was an atheist. So was Robert Nozick. Charles Koch is personally indifferent to religion, though he sees the evangelical alliance as crucial to the success of his fascist economic agenda. Koch also has no problem with LGBT rights. Evidently Cato its dropped its hostility to organized religion, but remains nothing near a clone of Heritage or Federalist.
1
It has never been a mystery to me that people with two conflicting ideologies would be more liberal that than those who ideology is narrow and uncompromising. Christianity as outlined in the New Testament is the very antithesis of American Conservatism.
The utilization of Newspeak and churches that extol the virtue of greed and materialism make transparent that much of "Christian" America is very antiChristian.
America is confused and a man with no charity, no empathy and no understanding sits in the Oval Office.
It is Theatre of the Absurd and Godot has finally arrived.
America will not survive because words no longer have any meaning.
66
@Memphrie et Moi
I beg to differ. I believe that America will survive, and it will be because words DO have meaning, yours for a start. Much of what you said is true. Words are what will defeat Trump (eventually) because words hold and present truth and truth will triumph.
"You will know the truth and the truth will set you free."
@Barbara Rank
I am not much of a believer but I pray you are correct and will so what I can to prove myself wrong.
@Memphrie et Moi So right. I have been amazed for the past 8 years or so how much gaslighting is attempted daily, at the state and community level, by governments, academia, business, regular people. How many people and organizations have been able to look me in the face and assert up is down, left is right, untrue is true, and "everybody" does whatever immoral practice the speaker wishes to assert.
2
I found some of the questions in this pool to be poor measuring sticks. So, white people who go to church more often are more likely to say they have "warm feelings" toward various groups, black people, Latinos, Asians. I don't find that surprising. As a gay man, I've heard more than one religious conservative say he cared about me, but that caring manifested by wanting to put me in conversion therapy, wanting to deny me marriage rights or the ability to adopt children.
Religious Christians are taught to espouse love for everyone, but the way they show that "love" doesn't always fit what the receiving party would call caring.
And, I'd like to ask why conservatives need church to make them tolerant of others. The vast majority of liberals are able to have warm feelings toward various peoples not identical to themselves without weekly time in a pew.
276
@Matt S.
You are very welcome in my church. We would love to have you join our community (ELCA) which does much more than spend weekly time in a pew. Check us out!
@Matt S. Someday perhaps, The NY Times will post an honest article about religion. The "liberal" media is so busy picking on christians, they simply don't have time to admit that in reality, they are religious apologists and promoters. Just too darn busy attacking.....
@Matt S. "Religious Christians are taught to espouse love for everyone, but the way they show that "love" doesn't always fit what the receiving party would call caring."
That's exactly what my kids complain about. I don't give them everything they want or when I do, they don't like the manner or timing. Yet I do indeed love them.
I hope my kids mature in their thinking, and I hope the political conservatives and progressives do as well.
Your polling here masks the real issue to the point that the reader can only assume you're intentionally wishing to lead them astray. Religious conservatives an moderates on all of the above except abortion. And abortion is their highest single political issue, so they're willing to cast aside their positions on all the rest because they're only moderately concerned about them and can count on the political process to address with them without expressing their views.
It's sort of like a battering ram surrounded with foam. So you're right, there's all this nice soft foam, which should absorb a lot of political conflict. Oh, and then there's the battering ram.
43
@Robert
Add gay and transgender to your list of exceptions. If abortion disappears as a rallying point (highly unlikely), religious conservatives will still vehemently, and often radically, pursue the elimination of rights for all those who are not 1950s-era heterosexual.
12
"Some on the left might applaud such trends." Some on the left might.
But, setting aside the question of what a head count of "church-goers" really measures, it seems to me that the larger issue about the religious right is its unfavorable, Bible-based lack of acceptance of the sexual majority: women. My sense is that the battle against choice is the primary political motivator of the religious right, church-goers or not. That's where Democrats' "outright negative views of evangelical Christians" begin.
21
We will never forget that 80% of evangelicals supported Trump and formed the core of his base.
Proving that Evangelical faith was nothing but ethnic tribalism and white supremacy all along.
Despite attempts by columnists like this to distance Evangelical faith from racism, the numbers did not lie and the people know it.
236
This is rational, but assumes that voters are rational. In a climate here voters quite like the affordable care act, but detest the so-called obamacare, we have no hope.
20
I think trying to gather data on church going members (and in particular what they think) in relation to politics does us all a disservice, since there should be clear separation of church and state.
The blurring of the lines continues as religious entities become more and more political in practice and in dollars. That is of course excluding the fact that all of us (whether we vehemently disagree with it or not) are subsidizing those views and practices by our tax dollars. (and their tax exemption)
Go to church and pray to whatever God you wish, but do so on your own time, on your own dime and keep your religious views out of governing.
Besides, Atheism is the fastest growing group and they/we are decidedly Liberal. It is only a matter of time and demographics before we don't have to have these conversations.
Thank God.
52
@FunkyIrishman I sure wish us secular taxpayers would stop paying for their wars.
2
@FunkyIrishman
Then again, don't forget to use your faith and moral conscience to inform your vote.
1
The author's data on churchgoing believers is credible, however there is a distinction between non religious Trump supporters and religious non churchgoers whose observance may include private practices, prayer, or non institutional participation. It's also reasonable to surmise that church attendance is a socializing force that may lower the temperature of fire and brimstone flowing from the fever swamps of fundamentalist dogma.
That aside, it's obvious that christianist zealotry is alive and well and on the march. Few elected officials will pay a political price for declaring that our country is a Christian nation. The war on Christmas continues to be an annual hit on Fox. And where else could a country comprised of about 70% Christians hold that Christianity in America is threatened? Indeed, our courts are now finding in favor of plaintiffs who claim violation of their beliefs by defendents who refuse to share those beliefs. As for women's reproductive rights, we now prepare for a new Justice with a softer spot for a weeks-old zygote than for a child born in poverty.
45
How do you know it’s credible?
I’m a mathematician specializing in statistics, so I understand and acknowledge the apparent poll results.
We already know we have a minority government, judging by the fact that that only way that our so-called president, along with the House and Senate, are only controlled by Republicans because of the Electoral College system, partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression, and, finally, the overwhelming advantage that rural Red states have in electing US Senators (e.g., 18% of the populace elects a majority of Senators), respectively.
Thus, what this poll doesn’t—and can’t—take into account is that our minority government is, and will be for some time to come, comprised of fringe elements. This is particularly true starting at the top and throughout the cabinet-level appointments. A poll of the Cabinet members alone would indicate that they identify as Evangelicals yet share not one of the “compassionate middle” traits alluded to. And they’re the ones calling the shots right now, starting with VP Mike Pence.
Vote like your life depends on it. Because it does.
288
@Terry Malouf You're right. Except that to comprise means to comprehend, not to compose. Statisticians, among all people, should grasp this. Our minority government is composed of fringe elements. And it comprises many fringe elements. But it can't be "comprised OF" fringe elements.
@David Is that all you got out of @Terry's message? This is a comment board and not an English lesson board. Left brain vs. Right brain, does cause people to relate to things differently and this is such a case. Your point is nuanced and the vast majority of readers understood @Terry's message as it was written. The most sobering point that @David made was that only 18% of our electorate determines our national elections. We must have election reforms to address the inequities. Alabama with 3 million people should not have the same voice as California with it's 39 million residents. We need term limits (including the Supreme Court), elimination of the Electoral College, and to codify the rules in the Senate. Allowing 51 Senators to, along party lines, place judges on the Supreme Court for life is not good for the Country. It needs to be at least 60 votes and one could make a good argument for 67 (two-thirds).
@Terry Malouf Also, the author works for the Koch brother’s think tank. The first, and single most damging influence peddling tool of the democracy destroying, illiberal, anti-social, anti-environment, corporate protectionist billionaires. Church going liberals? They delivered us into this sorry state.
8
As the U.S. becomes less religious, we need to find other forums for encouraging generosity, humility, and acceptance. Whatever its flaws, near-universal identification with Christianity at least provided a shared language and some good moral teachings. With it in decline, we are seeing the re-emergence of what it was an advance over: cult of personality, amoral individualism, ethno-tribalism. Alas for us, we are not ready to be enlightened.
20
@Patrick R Notice that we have no parallel study comparing secular with sectarian liberals. Do you suppose the adherents of the more liberal denominations would be more pro-immigrant than their secular liberal counterparts? If not, it's hard to argue that Christianity was the social glue. I'd say that since 1940, secular Jews have been the social glue.
3
@Patrick R
The Catholic Churches were integrated in Dixie even in the Jim Crow era. The Southern Baptist Convention, as represented by the Falwells, Smathers, Hagee’s et al can hardly be termed Christian. Their doctrine is bigoted hatred, and rejection of solid science.
25
@James S Kennedy The Catholic Church in the South still maintained a segregated school system. Patrick O'Boyle, Archbishop of Washington when I was a child, slowly integrated his Catholic school system just before the Brown decision. But I think he was more progressive than most of his fellow bishops from the South.
The author is describing one subset of conservative, perhaps reasonable Christian churchgoers. I would assert there is another more vocal, more virulent subset who seek to subvert the separation of church and state; who seek to assert their radical worldview over more mild mannered Christians, those of other religious faiths and non-believers. Don't be distracted by the group described in the essay, it is the other subset, the evangelical fanatics that need to be watched and escorted from the statehouse. Believe what you want, that is the American way, but don't force it on me or anyone else.
93
@BaileyAnd that more virulent subset is led by Mike Pence -- who provides cover and whips the base to heel for Trump.
1
I think you have left out a very important factor in your analysis:
wealth. I believe wealthy conservatives attend church much less
frequently than poorer conservatives.
14
I don't doubt that the assertions of this Op-Ed are true, that religious affiliation tends to mitigate the more tribal and divisive attitudes of conservative voters. But attitudes are not actions. Well intended, even Biblical attitudes about our essential identity as children of God, for example, can efface the experienced differences of race and class. Attitudes of charity can create walls between those who give it and those who receive it, which affects the experience of dignity and equality. Real Christianity is often really hard, at least when your community really is diverse. Very few Protestant congregations--the only ones I have experience of--have much diversity, whatever they think of it, and very few encourage much deep examination of the societal consequences of their beliefs and attitudes. This Op-Ed is optimistic about the lesson plan, so to speak, but our society is experiencing the actual classroom, and the two are not the same.
24
I only hope as many as possible fellow human beings read such reports, in silence reflect on them, ...and then do as much discussion as possible for there is nothing harder to understand than the present for we are part of it.
5
So, if the church-/house-of-worship going public has such disagreement with Le Grand Orange on so many of these policies, are they going to continue voting for him, and those he supports and campaigns for?
73
@Glenn Ribotsky That's the question. When you talk about one Trump supporter who has somewhat more liberal attitudes than another Trump supporter, you are still talking about two Trump supporters. People have been expecting since early in the primaries that the supposedly more liberal Trump supporter would reach some kind of limit beyond which they couldn't follow him, but that limit is apparently still somewhere over the horizon. Still, it's of some interest that they aren't a monolithic bloc. But in practical political terms, it seems they might as well be.
26
It's extremely easy to understand how regular, sincere, church attendance could exert a moderating influence on attendees' attitudes towards racial and religious minorities but not at all apparent (at least to me), sadly, this would be the case for their attitudes towards sexual minorities in general and regarding gay men in particular. I will examine the study closely but I am not hopeful about finding any basis for rationally drawing any such conclusion.
27
@Colin When I attended Good Friday services in London a year ago, in a lovely old Kensington Anglican Church, the congregants consisted of old ladies and gay men of varying ages, but mostly young. They all appeared to know one another. I can’t imagi tge gay men felt unwelcome.
1