First up from the God Machine this week is a look at the 2012 presidential election, and the differences along religious lines. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life published a report this week based on exit polling data, and I put together a chart based on its findings.
There's a fair amount of interesting data here, though the results among Roman Catholic voters are arguably the most electorally significant. In every recent cycle, Catholics have been considered a key swing constituency, particularly throughout Midwest battleground states, and President Obama narrowly won their support, 50% to 48%. It suggests Republicans' efforts to focus on contraception and reproductive rights had limited success, and the Bishops' lobbying largely fell on deaf ears.
Also note, while many on the right hoped 2012 would be the year that Jewish voters abandoned Democrats, that didn't come close to happening. Though Obama fared slightly worse among Jewish voters as compared to 2008, he still enjoyed overwhelming support.
For the purposes of classification, "Other faiths" became a catch-all for a variety of minority religious traditions -- Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and others -- which on their own represent a very small percentage of the voting population. Their support for the GOP remains dismal.
And continue to keep an eye on the religiously unaffiliated -- one of the fastest growing segments of the faith population -- which includes atheists, agnostics, and theists who choose not to associate with any specific tradition. Their lopsided support for Obama reinforces yet another demographic problem for Republicans in the coming years.
As for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), it's not surprising that they would strongly support Mitt Romney -- he was the first Mormon ever to appear on a national ticket -- but there was one curiosity in the results: Romney did slightly worse among Mormon voters this year than George W. Bush did in 2004.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* Congress only had one openly atheist member, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), who lost his re-election bid this week. However, Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), who describes herself as a "non-theist," appears likely to prevail in her congressional bid (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).
* Hawaii elected Congress' first-ever Hindu American, Tulsi Gabbard, a 31-year-old Iraq war veteran, a woman widely seen as a rising star in Democratic politics. Hawaii also elected Mazie Hirono (D) to the U.S. Senate, where she will be the chamber's first-ever Buddhist senator.
* And I'd be remiss if I failed to mention this jarring video of radical TV preacher Pat Robertson, reflecting on "Fifty Shades of Grey" and the fact that he finds porn "boring."
Leave a Comment:
Ironically, evangelicals were told Romney would be 'better on Israel,' but those who identified as Jewish voted Obama. Guess the evangelical leaders didn't know what they were talking about.
Fifty shades of BLUE...
PS: Not to harp on the Robertson part of this TRMS post to the detriment of the informative and cool graph (I'm very interested in how religion shapes our lives and subsequently some people’s voting habits, especially as we grow increasingly secular as a society despite what other news outlets would have people believe), but I would like to draw attention to the extremely sexist language Robertson uses to describe the 50 Shades author. “This author, kind of a little housewifey type” . . . “who doesn’t look like some glamor queen” . . . “This woman is a housewife in some little town in England.”
I don’t know how much of a player most people would consider a Robertson-type TV barker to be these days, but he's not alone in his awfulness toward women. When other running-for-office or in-office politicians wonder why they are losing public favor and yet continue to use similarly sexist language when talking about women, who make up the majority of people in this country, they need to look within. Women vote, dudes. And so do not-sexist men who are tired of hearing your awful hate-speak, too. We are listening when you call us names to try to get us to sit down and be quiet (like Limbaugh, whom I realize is not an elected official but has a podium); we are listening when you make up nonsense science to try to shame us and take away our reproductive health choices (a la Akin and Mourdock and Paul Ryan); we are listening when you flip-flop-flip when asked whether you'd defund Planned Parenthood or overturn Roe v. Wade (Romney). Your sexist language cannot be covered up with claims of misspeaking or words taken out of context. We are listening when your carefully crafted personae crack ever so slightly and your deep-seated sexism reveals itself. We are listening, and we are VOTING YOU OUT.
Amen!
I too found Robertson's comment about E.L. James being a "housewifey type" to be incredibly offensive. Besides, she herself says that she lives in the "leafy suburbs of West London," which I imagine is pretty urban. Furthermore--I gladly give her kudos for promoting the 16th century religious composer Thomas Tallis. Tallis' anthems as Music to Listen To While Getting Ravished by a Hot Rich Guy? Hey, why not?
Non-evangelical Christians would come under "Other Faiths" and those that are religious, but not affiliated with any specific church are considered "Unaffiliated". The whole contraceptive issue boils down to the fact that if you want to do business in these United States, you have to obey our laws and our laws are that insurance companies are not allowed to discriminate against women in their prescription drug benefits. Religious Freedom does not mean the freedom to force your religious beliefs on any other individual. No employer, no insurance agency, no government agency, no church gets to take that choice away from an individual. If you don't like birth control - don't take it! But you cannot legislate that choice to other individuals.
If you don't like birth control - don't take it! But you cannot legislate that choice to other individuals. - Margatta
I totally agree with you. Look at what has happened when alcohol and marijuana are banned. A black market is created to fill the demand. The same would happen if the birth control pill was banned.
@Margatta. Insurance companies make decisions every day about what perscription drug benefits we have. If it's not on their formulary, they don't pay for it. I would love to get name brand medications but my insurance company only pays for generic for certain meds. Other meds are not even available!
This isn't about taking one's choice away or banning birth control!!! Birth control is readily available to all at an affordable cost. This is about how far the government's reach will be into religious organizations.
Poor nutty Pat looks OLD and tired.
And I know no male who "struggles" with porn.... except maybe gay wrestling flicks.
I am shocked that evangelicals supported Romney. I was raised hearing the rants about Mormans being a cult. But then, I was also raised listening to rants about drinking by drinking evangelicals. lol
Sadly, it seems, the majority of people who say they're religious seem to follow more of a 'warm, fuzzy, feel-good gut feeling' rather than understand just what their faith 'really' means and/or fully entails. Their knowledge of Sacred Scriptures amounts to either 'what they've read' (whether read 'in context', or not, and understand its historical socio-economic, cultural roots)...or...is just repeating the opinion of their local preacher/predator. That so many of the faithful fail to understand that religion uses Gods Name to 'make money' and control peoples lives is sad. I would encourage those who wish to be faithful to be wary of being 'spoon-fed' by others and 'do the work' themselves...it is a life-long journey.
to me the most noteworthy part of the graph is seeing how close the pro democratic unaffiliated are to cancelling out the pro republican evangelicals. another four years and i suspect it will even out
Hmm... Didn't realize that 30% of all women are involved in pornagracy. Thanks, Pat. Now if I only knew what pornagracy was.
"In every recent cycle, Catholics have been considered a key swing constituency, particularly throughout Midwest battleground states, and President Obama narrowly won their support, 50% to 48%."
this needs some additional data......
according to the religion news service obama won catholics in wisconsin and ohio in '08 by 7 points and lost them in those two states this time by 7 points.
i'd advise democrats to ignore a 14 point swing in one cycle at their peril.
but more imortantly, obama won catholics overall because he won hispanic catholics by 54 points, 75-21 while losing white catholics by 19 points, 59-40.
to me the unreported story is that the american bishops have gone all in on their support for the gop, which leaves them looking at the part of their congregation that is overwhelmingly supporting democrats [and being the main factor in the u.s. church's growth] across a racial divide.
i can't imagine this ending well...
I want to see the atheist column, though it's a non-religion.
I find it extremely fascinating that the Christian right overwhelmingly voted in favor of the non-Christian candidate over the Christian candidate. This tells me that "voting Christian" doesn't really mean anything because they're not voting based on theology or doctrine. They don't care about having someone who believes in the same religion they do, they care about getting what THEY want out of economic policies. They vote based on greed and self interest. I suppose this is why I have abandoned traditional evangelical Christianity in favor of something that is a little bit closer to what the Bible says and declare myself a Christian heretic... or Christian liberal, whatever the Christianists (fundamentalists) want to call it.
bigotry trumps hypocracy?
in other "twig" related election news
Mixed night for Anti-Islamists
Losers: Allan West [suing for recount, of course], Adam Hanser [who once left a Florida House meeting when an Imam delivered the opening prayer] and Joe Walsh.
Survivors: Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks of Arizona, Louis Gohmert of Texas, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Diane Black of Tennessee, and Steve King of Iowa.
source:
http://www.religionnews.com/politics/election/american-muslims-celebrate-defeat-of-congressional-critics
------------------
Tough Night for Jewish Republicans: Better Night for Jewish Democratics
The biggest Jewish loser: Sheldon Adelson
In Ohio, the party’s star Senate candidate, Josh Mandel—a Jewish Marine who is a veteran of the Iraq war—lost to the incumbent, Sherrod Brown, by a larger margin than Romney lost to Obama.
Former Virginia Sen. George Allen, lately attuned to his Jewish roots, lost his comeback attempt, and in Hawaii, former Gov. Linda Lingle lost the state’s Senate race to a Democratic congresswoman, Mazie Hirono.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach lost his effort to win a New Jersey House seat, and in Florida, Lois Frankel, the Democratic former mayor of West Palm Beach, beat Adam Hasner, a 42-year-old Jewish Republican former state representative who launched his congressional run after losing Florida’s Senate primary.
Meanwhile, Democrat Brad Schneider, running as a rookie candidate, successfully challenged a sitting congressman, Robert Dold, on Chicago’s North Shore.
The only major loss for Jewish Democrats was in Nevada, where Rep. Shelley Berkley failed to make the leap to the Senate. In part, this may have actually been thanks to Sheldon Adelson, her former boss, who spent at least $4 million to beat her.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/115948/adelson-is-elections-biggest-loser
--------
ps
Biggest Jewish Winner [ok, only half Jewish] : Nate Silver
http://juicyjews.com/2012/11/07/3820/
---------------
elections done easy...
Egypt's Copts choose new pope
(AP) —At the Coptic Cathedral, there was a moment of silence. Then a boy, chosen by lottery, his face covered by a dark blue cloth decorated with religious images, was led to the chalice.
Copts believe that his hand would be guided by God. He reached into the vessel and pulled out the name of Bishop Tawadros, who will be the next spiritual leader of the Copts.
On Nov. 18 he will be ordained as Pope Tawadros II, the 118th pope of the ancient Coptic Orthodox Church.
http://news.yahoo.com/ap-photos-egypts-copts-choose-pope-191900801.html
----------------
and finally, in case you missed steve talking about this yesterday...
Charles Darwin, the 19th-century naturalist who laid the foundations for evolutionary theory, received nearly 4,000 write-in votes in Athens-Clarke County in balloting for the 10th Congressional District seat retained Tuesday by five-year incumbent Republican Rep. Paul Broun.
In addition to the write-in votes cast for Darwin,“votes” were cast in the race for “Anyone but Broun,” “Anyone else” and various permutations of that sentiment, with “Big Bird” and “Bill Nye, The Science Guy” also earning ballots
http://onlineathens.com/election/2012-11-08/charles-darwin-gets-nearly-4000-write-votes-athens-against-rep-broun
ps:
it was also a big night for gay rights and gay equality
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/opinion/a-big-leap-for-marriage-equality.html?_r=0
I would like to say that the atheist argument is illogical at its core.
Aristotle summed it up. Regardless of your system of Faith the most fundamental question boils down to two choices that are the fundamental upon which all Faith systems are based. (Science is a faith based system {I am a physicist}) The fundamental question is; Where did all of this come from? The Universe has either always existed or was spontaneously generated from Nothing. Eternal existence and spontaneous creation are the founding stones of what has become the traits of the divine. The universe IS that which contains the traits of the divine.
Now, the problem arises when, in an effort to exert social control, an organization attaches ritual and rules to what is a philosophical discussion. Every atheist I have ever debated with is anti-church and agnostic. There is no such thing as atheism. There are only people too lazy or too hurt by a childhood church experience to actually the address the fundamental question of faith. Churches are simply schools of philosophy that for whatever reason give their worshipers a no thought way to cope with what is a simple issue. I have a system of belief simply by virtue of the fact that I am compelled to attempt to comprehend everything. I have only one faith based belief. All others build upon it or upon other reasoned arguments. That one faith based belief is that in the beginning there was Nothing (capital N; a powerful state is non-existence) and that in some way a change occurred. Here we are. I could be wrong. It is an inability to acknowledge that possibility of error that is the hallmark of a fundamentalist faith regardless of belief system.
What I found the most telling in this election was the propagation of concept that somehow the Evangelical belief system should be imposed upon the entire population and at the same time not having that occur is the rest of the nation imposing their belief system on Evangelicals. WTF? None of the evangelicals in my family recognize how ludicrous that belief is nor want to try.
The true division in this nation is those that seek self education and those who don't. Bigotry is a manifestation of fear of the unknown. Education is the foil to bigotry when reality is the base of that education. Listening to someone tell you how it is is a form of education. But that systems means that you place your faith in the person you listen to. What I don't understand and cannot get a handle on is how someone can continue to believe what one individual keeps feeding them when that person is shown time and time again to be lying. I have far to much self respect to allow myself to be knowing deceived. I would far rather accept a hard truth than a comforting lie. And that is the meat at the center of the religious nut; the comforting lie that is couched in an otherwise true discussion of inquiry.
Read a book, talk to others, listen, really listen, think
Tom,
What BS - stick to physics if you really ARE a physicist. You obviously know nothing about athiests or what or why they do or do not believe.
You one of those people with an advanced degree that thinks it gives you knowledge of everything about everything???
You do not have to have believe in God or have "faith" to wonder how everything started. I don't know what was before the Big Bang, but I assume some sort of physical processes were occuring - I don't have to have "faith" that "God did it"!
As far as the the universe being divine - REALLY? Based on WHAT? The fact that YOU don't understand it? Well, if you ever get rid of your brainwashing, then just maybe you will be able to use your mind to SEE what is actually out there! It is AMAZING and it has NOTHING to do with any God!
REALLY? Now WHAT fantasy world are YOU living in?
From a purely scientific viewpoint of searching for first cause that led to the effect that is the Universe, faith is required because we can not know. That IS faith.
What is God? I am certain you have some definition of what you think that word means. I also know that what you think it means is not what I think it means.
I also can be fairly certain you didn't listen to what I wrote and then think before posting.
The Universe is the embodiment of the divine because the recorded history of human philosophy and the definition of divine historically say it is. It is the intellectual pursuit of determining which origin is true that has created religion. The majority of people tend to believe what they are told by authority figure. I was the a-hole in school that asked a lot of question. A LOT of questions. Not asking IS placing faith in the individual telling. Faith is religion. I choose to have faith that existence IS. Period.
Everyone has faith in something simply by virtue of that fact that not everything can be explained.
We are not using the same definitions for a number of words. If you want to argue the points I seek to make use my definitions. They are the ones I mean. Changing what I mean to make a point is not in fact an argument against anything I have written. It as an argument unrelated to what I have written except for a coincidental aspect of visual form.
God is not a mystical being dispensing wishes. To me God is existence. I say that simply because it is the core tenet of every system of belief I have ever read. Be it pure philosophy, religion, or science. Gravity IS. IS what? No clue. Lots of hypothesis, but we don't fall off the Earth. Gravity IS. Faith based on observation is the core of science simply because we have not yet found the truth.
Faith is a system of belief based on no definite proof of truth.
Religion is a social group that chooses to tend to have the same system of faith. I say tend t because sects and cults exist. Christianity began as a Jewish cult following of the teaching of one man and his students. Modern Science began in Greece where the philosophical inquiry into finding the truth of existence began, at least in written form. Asserting a belief in science is a statement of faith. I don't believe in science, I believe scientific inquiry can lead to truth.
But then this is just my opinion.
I am curious about one statement. "As far as the the universe being divine - REALLY? Based on WHAT? The fact that YOU don't understand it? Well, if you ever get rid of your brainwashing, then just maybe you will be able to use your mind to SEE what is actually out there! It is AMAZING and it has NOTHING to do with any God!" The implication is that you in fact do understand the Universe. (seriously raised eyebrow) Really! Really! Bull! The top astrophysicists, particle physicists, string theorists, et al can not say they understand the universe. You seem to certainly BELIEVE you understand. Belief has the power to close minds when that belief is not acknowledged as being such.
"You do not have to have believe in God or have "faith" to wonder how everything started. I don't know what was before the Big Bang, but I assume some sort of physical processes were occuring - I don't have to have "faith" that "God did it"!" As I said; two choices, eternal existence (which you seem to support) or spontaneous generation from a state of nothingness which I tend to believe is true. Flip a coin. There is no way to know with any certainty and both arguments have merit. You could be right. I do in fact believe the the physical state that is Nothing (capital N) does in fact have eternal existence. The material Universe IS finite if and only if quantum mechanics is correct. That would imply that some 'thing' exists beyond its borders. But the Universe is the entirety of the material existence (my definition). So all that leaves is non-existence. Its complicated. And yes at times I do hold multiple conflicting concepts in my mind simultaneously. I can not know with any measure of certainty that I am correct. I express a viewpoint not a fundamental truth.
One other thing I do believe is that open discourse is the most fundamental right of the human animal.
Tom,
The difference between you and I is that I can accept that there are some things I just don't know. You need to attribute what you don't know to "faith". I don't. I just accept that I don't know. I will probably never know, but I do know that someone in the future WILL figure out what it is that I do not know now - and it won't have anything to do with God or "faith".
The really sad thing about religion is that no matter how much education you have, no matter how intelligent you are, you cannot' break the restrictions that religion puts on your brain!!
You seriously miss my point. Not knowing and still believing IS faith. Regardless of whether you acknowledge not knowing; which I do express repeatedly if you would actually read the whole post before you respond.
This is exactly how the Jeep rumor started. Skim. Misunderstand. Fill in your own facts. Post.
Wow! Enjoy your certainty that belief is not faith based.
No Tom,
I understood you - you were just trying to use pomposity to convince me of your superior knowledge!
I'm an engineer - I believe in PLAIN ENGLISH! I try to make myself understood! Sorry if you can't understand that!
Let me put it this way, statistically speaking, the probability that there will be an advancement in knowledge about the universe in the next 50 years has about a 95% confidence interval,
I don't need "faith" to understand probability. It has nothing to do with belief.
I will make one last statement.
I have acknowledged the possibility that I could be wrong and you could be correct.
Question
Which one of us refuses to accept the possibility of being wrong and which one falls back on dogmatic rhetoric to defend their beliefs?
I once had a professor, a man with two Doctorates, say to me in response to a question about the nature of Zero; "Greater minds than our came up with these theories so they must be correct. Get the hell out of my office and I never want to see you during office hours again!" Faith. Dogma. Closed Mind.
I seek to understand because I acknowledge I don't know. If I believed I already knew, I wouldn't seek knowledge.
All statistical arguments are at best semi-valid. Reality is in the outliers that are ignored in modern science. Rutherford, in the modern era, would have ignored the ones that bounced back. The didn't fit the preconceived model and they didn't fit what was occurring in the majority of the proton's paths. They were a statistically small portion of all the protons bombarding the gold foil. Where would modern science be if he threw away the outliers and formed his atomic model on only the 'statistically relevant' data?
Statistics are a fine tool. They are not truth in and of themselves. They are probabilities, possibilities, not certainties. When I was young it was highly probable that we would have a base on the moon before the year 2000. Where is it? Probability is not reality. How is the confidence interval on the unknown determined? Seriously. How? Its a guess. Period.
I guess as an engineer, I don't have to "believe" in a tool to use it.
For instance I know that in one gram of tritium there will be about 3.6 E14 disintegrations per second. This is very much a "statistic". I don't have to know which atoms will decay, in fact, I will never know which atoms decay, and I don't have to "believe" which atoms will decay. I do know that if I have a gram or a ton of tritium, I will know how exactly how many betas will be produced! If I need a certain number of betas for something, I KNOW EXACTLY how much tritium I need to obtain. If for some reason, if the amount of betas weren't what I had calculated them to be, you can bet I would be investigating to find out why!
Simply because something is a statistic doesn't REALLY mean it is a "guess"!
The fact is that I really don't have "beliefs" - I have what I know and I have what I don't know. Period. Yes, we all try to expand our knowledge - to not do so is to die.
I will "believe" when God shows me some proof that he exists. Otherwise, I just don't know if he exists or not! Here is an example of "I don't know". And quite frankly, it doesn't bother me to not know. I have accepted long ago that there will always be things I don't know. If what I don't know interests me, I'll delve into it - if not, I won't! God doesn't interest me!
Perhaps it is because you are enamored of metaphysics - and I just think it is "word games". Each to their own I guess.
I don't deny your right to "believe", but please don't deny my right NOT to believe, and don't tell me that I am lying to myself.
oncearepublican,
I am comfortable with your belief that there is no proof that there is a God and you believe there is no God because of that. I can't support someone that says that there can NOT be a God.
I think the time that the Big Bang happened and before that, is an interesting point of discussion. Prior to the Big Bang there was no time and no physics because there was nothing. To ask myself "how did this all happen" and leave out the possibility that there might be a God, seems to be a little un-curious if that's a word.
Shame on you for using a graphic that brings your data into question! This chart does a huge disservice to the Protestant community--how did the mainline Protestant denominations do? Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.. You could have grouped those together. "Evangelicals" includes groups as diverse as American Baptist Churches USA (which is, overall, a very progressive body), Southern Baptist Convention (very conservative), and Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (more liberal & Jimmy Carter's denomination), as well as loosely affiliated groups like Foursquare and Vineyard churches.
The first sentence of Rachel's Blog includes a link to the more extensive study the initial graph refers to. http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/How-the-Faithful-Voted-2012-Preliminary-Exit-Poll-Analysis.aspx
There, you can drill down for more specific data.
That requires an effort towards self education that is prohibited by the teachings of fundamentalist religious sects.
Bob: I posted this same link--but you beat me to it by 15 minutes. This will, however, give me an excuse to point out the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (www.pewforum.org), which is one of the best resources on the Web for information on contemporary American religion.
I appreciate the effort to be helpful, Mr. Phillips, but the chart on the link just says "Other Christian", so it is not a composite breakdown which is what both ConstanceMarie and I were requesting. Sorry, I didn't see her post before making almost an identical comment. Mr. Spellicy's commentary is specifically unhelpful but you have at least tried, so I do thank you.
As a faithful Presbyterian and Obama supporter, I am also sad that protestants didn't make the chart!
Here's a Mormon who landed on the blue side, TWICE! I dunno, maybe it was my catholic and jewish grandmothers pulling me from beyond the grave
How did Romney do among the gay evangelical non-sexual Asian vote?
A suggestion to other "left off the chart" mainline Christians--you might tweet your suggestions that the chart (or at least this blog post) be revised to @MaddowBlog and @stevebenen
"In every recent cycle, Catholics have been considered a key swing constituency, particularly throughout Midwest battleground states, and President Obama narrowly won their support, 50% to 48%. It suggests Republicans' efforts to focus on contraception and reproductive rights had limited success, and the Bishops' lobbying largely fell on deaf ears."
As a Catholic (non-practicing - disillusioned by organized religion and actually how out of touch with real life it can be), let me just note that Catholic women stopped listening to the Bishops, Priests & Pope, for that matter, on the issues of family planning, contraception use and I am pretty sure...pre-marital sex, long before the Republicans attempted to use their altar boy VP candidate to swing Catholic voters. I think this may be yet another sign that the Republicans are just a tad out of touch!
Just think about that for a second too...if Catholic women will defy the holiest of mortal men over these issues, possibly risking their eternal life...what makes the mortal Republican politicians think that these women would "see the light" and vote for them?!? :)
of possible interest....three challenges to the birth control provisions in the aca are working their way thru the courts....
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily4_&page=NewsArticle&id=36632&security=1521&news_iv_ctrl=-1
So, where on your bar graph do mainline Protestants like me fit in? Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Prebyterian, etc, etc? Aren't we about 27% of the American population? Isn't that just a tad bit more important than the 2% that are Mormon?
I'm a Jeffersonian deist who attends the Unitarian church. I guess that qualifies me as an "other?"
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
― Mark Twain