Surveys & polls

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking with Ryan Burge about Twitter Democrats, nones and people who sit in pews

, , , , , , , , , , ,

As researchers have been noting for several decades now, the active practice of a religious faith — especially traditional forms of faith — is one of the easiest ways to draw a line between political and cultural conservatives and people who consider themselves liberals or progressives.

This has obvious implications for clashes between Democrats and Republicans, no matter what the insiders and activists say and do while on camera at national political conventions.

If you want to review some “pew gap” basics, click here for a file of GetReligion material on the topic or head over here for a recent post — “Concerning Republicans, Democrats and gaps in pews“ — by political scientist Ryan Burge of the Religion in Public blog (and a contributor here at GetReligion).

Religious “nones” and other skeptics skew liberal and, thus, favor the Democratic party. Meanwhile, religious believers — especially white Christians who attend worship once a week or more — have increasingly flocked to the other side of the political aisle.

So what else could researchers do to chart this fault line in American political life?

Well, if you spend much time in the Twitter-verse, you know that lots of people in blue and red zip codes have radically different takes on the whole religion thing. This leads us to a fascinating think piece Burge wrote the other day for Religion News Service entitled, “By their tweets you will know them: The Democrats' continuing God gap.” Here is some material drawn from the overture:

Despite being a party that includes Black Protestants, who are some of the most religious Americans, and Hispanic Catholics, one of the few religious groups in the U.S. to be growing, Democrats still have troubles when it comes to talking about faith.

They have struggled to mobilize the religious left into a voting block and have troubles connecting with white Christian voters, the majority of whom supported President Trump in the last election.

And while Democrats do have the support of the so-called “Nones" — the growing group of Americans who have no religious affiliation — that group does not include particularly enthusiastic voters. …


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Freethought Caucus in U.S. House reflects the rise, and political potential, of the 'nones'

, , , , , ,

Rashida Tlaib of liberal “squad” fame on Capitol Hill, the first Palestinian-American and one of two Muslim women in the U.S. House, won this month’s primary against the president of Detroit’s City Council and is guaranteed re-election in a heavily Democratic district.

Now the “Friendly Atheist” blog on patheos.com revealed that Tlaib has quietly joined the Congressional Freethought Caucus. Aysha Khan, Religion News Service’s Muslim specialist, quickly grabbed the report.

Lest there be misunderstanding, this doesn’t mean Tlaib is spurning Islam like, say, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, celebrated author of “Infidel.” In theory, a religious believer can back such Freethought Caucus goals as “public policy based on reason and science,” protection of government’s “secular nature” and opposition to “discrimination against atheists, agnostics, and religious seekers.”

There are dozens of these special-interest caucuses in the House (.pdf here), covering anything from Cannabis to International Religious Freedom to LGBT Equality to rugby. One of the largest is the Prayer Caucus, chaired by North Carolina Baptist Mark Walker. The House members who lead the Ahmadiyya Muslim and American Sikh Caucuses are not adherents of those faiths, only interested friends.

There are now 13 House members in the Freethought Caucus, all of them Democrats, while 18 representatives decline to list a religious identity. Another 80 label themselves generic “Protestant” without specifying any particular church affiliation. See rundown on all Congress members here (.pdf).

These facts echo the increase of religiously unaffiliated “nones,” now 26 percent of the over-all U.S. population in Pew Research surveys. If effectively organized, they should exercise growing influence in the Democratic Party — though churchgoing Catholic Joe Biden’s nominating convention featured the customary God-talk.

Three Freethought members are among those who specify no religious identity: Representatives Sean Casten of Illinois, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

The New York Times visits Iowa heartland and hears just what its readers wanted to hear

, , , , , , , , ,

Trust me on this. If you want to visit Sioux Center, Iowa, you really need to want to go there.

Even by Midwestern standards, this town is remote. There’s a popular stereotype that many Christian liberal-arts colleges are found in lovely small towns in the middle of cornfields. That’s what we’re talking about here.

However, if you have visited this Dordt University and Sioux Center, you know that this trip is worth taking. This is especially true if you are interested in learning about the fine lines and complex divisions inside American evangelicalism and the Christian Reformed Church, in particular.

I bring this up, of course, because of a magisterial New York Times analysis that ran the other day that ran with this epic headline: “ ‘Christianity Will Have Power’ — Donald Trump made a promise to white evangelical Christians, whose support can seem mystifying to the outside observer.”

Friends, as strange as it sounds, it appears that we have found a topic on which the Times and America’s 45th president appear to be in agreement, for the most part. They share a common, simplistic view of evangelical Christianity in which everybody Just. Loves. Trump.

Before we go there, let me share part of a column that I wrote about the book “Alienated America” by journalist Timothy P. Carney. It appears that he visited the same Sioux Center that I did and what he learned there about evangelicals and the 2016 election didn’t surprise me one bit. This is long, but essential:

Research into (2016) primary voting, he noted, revealed that the "more frequently a Republican reported going to church, the less likely he was to vote for Trump." In fact, Trump was weakest among believers who went to church the most and did twice as well among those who never went to church. "Each step DOWN in church attendance brought a step UP in Trump support," noted Carney.

Reporters could have seen this principle at work early on in Sioux County, Iowa, where half of the citizens claim Dutch ancestry. According to the Association of Religion Data Archives, Sioux County has the highest percentage of evangelicals in Iowa. …

Trump didn't win a single Sioux County precinct in the Iowa caucuses.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Do these issues matter? Trump utters religious slur while Harris underlines Biden's Catholic questions

, , , , , , , , , , ,

This week’s Joe Biden and Kamala Harris nominations are an appropriate moment to look at the religious angles that writers are encountering in the 2020 campaign.

To begin, a Wall Street Journal column by Brookings Institution political scientist William A. Galston observes that in today’s United States “the level of religious polarization is the highest in the history of modern survey research.”

Which immediately brings up the Quote of the Year. It’s hard to think of any remark by a U.S. president more invidious than Donald Trump’s characterization of Democratic opponent Biden: “No religion, no anything. Hurt the Bible. Hurt God. He’s against God.”

Reporters seeking balance, and any Republicans who were embarrassed by this, could have noted that the 2020 food fight previously featured Democrats belittling the quality of Trump’s religiosity. Biden himself joined that chorus after the president’s walk from the White House to fire-damaged St. John’s Episcopal Church to hold a Bible aloft for the cameras: “I just wish he opened it once in a while instead of brandishing it. If he opened it, he could have learned something.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

People keep asking: Why does press say 'religious left,' as opposed to 'Religious Left'?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
People keep asking: Why does press say 'religious left,' as opposed to 'Religious Left'?

Every now and then, readers — or people I meet in daily life — ask this question: Why do journalists write so much about the Religious Right (capital letters), while devoting way less digital ink to the actions, policies and beliefs of the religious left (no capital letters).

That is a complex question and you can hear me struggling with it all the way through this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). The hook for this episode was my post that ran with this headline: “Thinking with David Briggs and Ryan Burge: Whoa, is religious left really on rise (again)?”

For starters, people tend to ask this question every four or eight years (hint, hint), when the mainstream press does another round of stories about the religious left surging into action in an attempt to counterbalance the nasty Religious Right.

The Religious Right, you see, exists all the time — because it is one of the largest camps inside the modern Republican Party. The religious left doesn’t play the same role in the Democratic Party, unless we are talking about the importance of politically (as opposed to doctrinally) liberal black-church leaders in strategic primary elections. You can ask Joe Biden about that this time around.

I guess the simple answer to the “RR” vs. “rl” question is that journalists tend to capitalize the names of groups that they see as major political or social movements — like the Civil Rights movement or the Sexual Revolution.

The religious left, you see, isn’t a “movement” that exists all the time — in my experience — for many mainstream journalists. The religious left is just ordinary, good, liberal religious people doing things that are positive and logical in the eyes of gatekeepers in newsrooms. This is “good” religion.

The Religious Right, on the other hand, is a powerful political movement consisting of strange, scary evangelicals who keep coming out of the rural backwoods to threaten normal life in American cities. This is “bad,” even dangerous, religion.

Now, there is another big irony linked to press coverage of progressive forms of faith.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking with David Briggs and Ryan Burge: Whoa, is religious left really on rise (again)?

, , , , , , , , , , ,

If you know your religion-beat history, then you know this name — David Briggs, who is best known for his years with the Associated Press.

If you know your GetReligion history, then you know that — for 17 years — we have been saying that the “religious left” deserves more attention. This is specially true in terms of the doctrinal beliefs of people in these blue pews and how those beliefs help shape their politics.

It seems that, every four years or so — a telling interval — we see a few stories about a surge of activity on the religious left and how that will impact politicians opposed by the Religious Right. It’s like politics is the only reality, or something.

Thus, several readers noted this recent Briggs byline for the Association of Religion Data Archives: “The decline of the religious left in the age of Trump.”

Say what? Here’s the overture:

President Trump has had a powerful mobilizing effect on the liberal and secular left in U.S. politics.

But will religious liberals also play a significant role in getting out the vote for Democrat Joe Biden in November?

Almost immediately after the 2016 election, some commentators began heralding the likelihood that a revived religious left would emerge from what many liberals considered the ashes of Trump’s victory.

But such hopes may be based more on a wing and a prayer than solid evidence of any such new awakening. Rather, there are several signs indicating “a notable decline” in political activity among religious liberals.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Cornel West and Robert George keeping fighting for tolerance in public square

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Cornel West and Robert George keeping fighting for tolerance in public square

America is so divided that 50% of "strong liberals" say they would fire business executives who donate money to reelect President Donald Trump.

Then again, 36% of "strong conservatives" would fire executives who donate to Democrat Joe Biden's campaign.

This venom has side effects. Thus, 62% of Americans say they fear discussing their political beliefs with others, according to a national poll by the Cato Institute and the global research firm YouGov. A third of those polled thought their convictions could cost them jobs.

That's the context for the efforts of Cornel West of Harvard University and Princeton's Robert George to defend tolerant, constructive debates in the public square. West is a black Baptist liberal and George is a white Catholic conservative.

"We need the honesty and courage not to compromise our beliefs or go silent on them out of a desire to be accepted, or out of fear of being ostracized, excluded or canceled," they wrote, in a recent Boston Globe commentary.

"We need the honesty and courage to recognize and acknowledge that there are reasonable people of good will who do not share even some of our deepest, most cherished beliefs. … We need the honesty and courage to treat decent and honest people with whom we disagree -- even on the most consequential questions -- as partners in truth-seeking and fellow citizens, … not as enemies to be destroyed. And we must always respect and protect their human rights and civil liberties."

They closed with an appeal to Trump and Biden, reminding them that "victories can be pyrrhic, destroying the very thing for which the combatants struggle. When that thing is our precious American experiment in ordered liberty and republican democracy, its destruction would be a tragedy beyond all human powers of reckoning."

It's distressing that this essay didn't inspire debates in social-media and the embattled opinion pages of American newspapers, noted Elizabeth Scalia, editor at large of Word on Fire, a Catholic apologetics ministry. After all, West and George are influential thinkers with clout inside the D.C. Beltway and they spoke out during a hurricane of anger and violence -- literal and verbal -- in American life.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thinking with Ryan Burge and Damon Linker: Blessed be the ties that used to bind America?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A friend of mine who was a data journalist long before that was normal — Anthony DeBarros — used to tell my Washington Journalism Center students the following: A good reporter can look at almost any solid set of survey statistics and see potential news stories.

So here we go again. When the Pew Research Center released its epic “Nones on the Rise” study in 2012, all kinds of reporters studied the details and saw all kinds of stories. The updates on those numbers keep producing headlines, with good cause.

But if was veteran scholar John C. Green — yes, I quote him a lot — who saw, even before the public release of those numbers (click here and then here for GetReligion reminders), a very important politics-and-religion story. Here is the crucial info, as he stated it on the record in 2012:

The unaffiliated overwhelmingly reject ancient doctrines on sexuality with 73 percent backing same-sex marriage and 72 percent saying abortion should be legal in all, or most, cases. Thus, the “Nones” skew heavily Democratic as voters — with 75 percent supporting Barack Obama in 2008. The unaffiliated are now a stronger presence in the Democratic Party than African-American Protestants, white mainline Protestants or white Catholics.

“It may very well be that in the future the unaffiliated vote will be as important to the Democrats as the traditionally religious are to the Republican Party,” said Green, addressing the religion reporters. “If these trends continue, we are likely to see even sharper divisions between the political parties.”

Of course, the modern Democratic Party also includes one of America’s most fervently religious camps, as well — African-American churchgoers.

Many have predicted the obvious: At some point, there will be tensions there. Woke Democrats are, for example, on the rise and grabbing lots of headlines. But who saved Joe Biden’s political neck in the South Carolina primary? How does he please the woke choir and the black church?

With that in mind, let’s look at two must-file charts that political scientist Ryan Burge circulated the other day via his must-follow Twitter account. And keep in mind that we are building toward a new Damon Linker essay with this blunt headline: “Could America split up?”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Post-Trump, how will U.S. evangelicals deal with internal rifts and external hostility? 

, , , , , , , , ,

The Donald Trump Era will end, whether in 2025 or 2021, and current state-by-state polls suggest it's the latter.

Reporters who get religion need to prepare for coverage whenever U.S. evangelical Protestantism reassesses its Trump-free past and future. That’s a big story, since this remains the most vibrant segment of U.S. religion, indeed, one of the nation’s largest movements of any type.

Evangelicalism first has internal rifts to work through. Make that white evangelicals. For the most part, Black, Latino and Asian-American evangelical churches, distinctly different in political sentiments, are unified, thriving and granted cultural respectability by the press..

White evangelicals’ public media image is all but overwhelmed by a coterie of Trump enthusiasts (think Jerry Falwell, Jr., Franklin Graham, Robert Jeffress, Paula White). There’s also a dogged faction of Trump skeptics (David French, Michael Gerson, Peter Wehner, or on occasion Sen. Ben Sasse or Southern Baptist spokesman Russell Moore).

But is evangelicalism merely a political faction? Of course not.

Largely ignored by the media, there’s a vast apparatus of denominations, local congregations, “parachurch” agencies, charities, mission boards and schools where leaders (whatever they think personally about Trumpish political histrionics) focus on traditional ministry and education.

The Trump years have created a gap between that non-partisan leadership elite and grassroots folk who identify as “evangelicals” with pollsters (whatever that means in belief or practice). Innumerable news articles have reported they gave Trump 81% backing in 2016.

But white evangelicals always vote heavily Republican. The Guy advises journalists that white Catholics will decide Trump’s fate. Our own tmatt notes the evidence showing that the 2016 vote was more anti-Hillary Clinton than pro-Trump.

While the evangelicals try to overcome their political squabbles to recapture past morale, they face hostility from culture-shaping higher education and (yes) the mass media that enhances their image problems.


Please respect our Commenting Policy