12 Americas

Mariner

Active Member
Nov 7, 2004
772
52
28
Boston, Mass.
There's a tendency here on USMB for people to refer to stereotype liberals as anti-religion. There's also a tendency to talk in terms of a single left/right dichotomy on issues ranging from abortion to the war in Iraq to tax and economic policy. There's enormous support here for almost anything George Bush does, and very few people voicing skepticism along the lines of moderate or independent Republicans, or along the lines of moderate or conservative Democrats.

The current Atlantic Magazine carries an interesting analysis which makes America look a lot more complicated. The original study can be found at:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/153/story_15355_1.html

Basically, the authors look for the current large groupings of Americans in terms of religion and politics, and find what they call 12 tribes. The surprise here for USMB religious conservatives should be just how religious many liberals actually are. For each tribe, I copied out what percent of the electorate they are, and how much they went for Bush over Kerry, if the article mentioned these things.

Republican Tribes

1. The Religious Right (12.6%, 90% for Bush)
2. Heartland Culture Warriers (11.4%, 74% for Bush)
3. Moderate Evangelicals (10.8%, 64% for Bush)

Democratic Tribes

4. Religious Left ("almost exactly the same size as the religious right"; 70% for Kerry)
These are described as progressives who are "liberal on economic policy and decidedly to the left on foreign policy."
5. Spritual but not Religious (5.3%, >60% for Kerry)
6. Black Protestants (9.6%, >80% for Kerry)
This group is liberal on economic and social policy, but conservative on values.
7. Jews (1.9%); 8. Muslims and Others (2.7%) (Both slightly for Kerry.)
9. Seculars (10.7%, >60% for Kerry)

Swing Tribes

10. White-bread Protestants (8.1%, ~60% for Bush)
They like Bush's tax cut policies.
11. Convertible Catholics (7%, 55% for Bush)
E.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger. In 2000 this group went for Gore; had Kerry done as well with them, he would have won the election in 2004.
12. Latino Christians (55% for Kerry).

Each party is thus a complex amalgam of different religious and economic views. The media emphasis on the culture war and the religious right has perhaps overemphasized its size and importance and underemphasized that of the religious left which, unlike the right, is actually growing.

The complexity of each party's make-up clearly explains why Bush has done so little to actually enact a religious right agenda, as the Atlantic piece points out--Bush has taken no real action in regard to banning abortion (which was on the platform of the Republican party in 2004), banning gay marriage, or pushing Intelligent Design.

Bush's Supreme Court nominations have also been carefully chosen--I personally believe that Bush is smart enough to know that if the Supreme Court actually reversed Roe v. Wade, the Republican Party would face a backlash, and could lose the Presidency as well as Congress.

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
Bush's Supreme Court nominations have also been carefully chosen--I personally believe that Bush is smart enough to know that if the Supreme Court actually reversed Roe v. Wade, the Republican Party would face a backlash, and could lose the Presidency as well as Congress.

Mariner.
I think there would be an initial backlash. But once people figured out that reversing Roe would not automatically change any abortion laws or the availability of abortion, I think it would simmer down.
 
calling oneself a Christian doesnt make you one.

"many will say, but Lord, we.... in your name...and I will say, I know you not"


FROM THE STUDY:

"What they care about: Liberal on most everything. On marriage, 42% favor same-sex unions and 29% civil unions; 77% are pro-choice on abortion. A majority opposes the war in Iraq. But only a few report that their faith is important to their political thinking, and overall, they oppose the political involvement of religious organizations.

They used self descriptions to decide who is a Christian.
 
LuvRPgrl said:
calling oneself a Christian doesnt make you one.

"many will say, but Lord, we.... in your name...and I will say, I know you not"


FROM THE STUDY:

"What they care about: Liberal on most everything. On marriage, 42% favor same-sex unions and 29% civil unions; 77% are pro-choice on abortion. A majority opposes the war in Iraq. But only a few report that their faith is important to their political thinking, and overall, they oppose the political involvement of religious organizations.

They used self descriptions to decide who is a Christian.

Who in hell are you to decide if someone who calls themself a Christian is "really" a Christian or not?
 
Mariner said:
...
Each party is thus a complex amalgam of different religious and economic views. The media emphasis on the culture war and the religious right has perhaps overemphasized its size and importance and underemphasized that of the religious left which, unlike the right, is actually growing.

The complexity of each party's make-up clearly explains why Bush has done so little to actually enact a religious right agenda, as the Atlantic piece points out--Bush has taken no real action in regard to banning abortion (which was on the platform of the Republican party in 2004), banning gay marriage, or pushing Intelligent Design.

Bush's Supreme Court nominations have also been carefully chosen--I personally believe that Bush is smart enough to know that if the Supreme Court actually reversed Roe v. Wade, the Republican Party would face a backlash, and could lose the Presidency as well as Congress.

Mariner.
I think this is an accurate assessment.
 
MissileMan said:
Who in hell are you to decide if someone who calls themself a Christian is "really" a Christian or not?


It's not him, it's God. God gives us a very accurate definition of how to tell if somebody really loves Him. I would contend it'd be impossible for somebody to proclaim Christ, yet embrace sin. Regardless of what they say, embracing Sin while proclaiming Christ means one has SERIOUS spiritual issues.
 
MissileMan said:
Who in hell are you to decide if someone who calls themself a Christian is "really" a Christian or not?

you are picking a fight over nothing.....he didn't claim to be the one to decide...lighten up dude

plus i would say:

There's a tendency here on USMB for people to refer to stereotype conservatives as bible thumping religous zelots. There's also a tendency for those left of center to talk in terms of a single right dichotomy on issues ranging from abortion to the war in Iraq to tax and economic policy.

And concerning this statement:

"There's enormous support here for almost anything George Bush does, and very few people voicing skepticism along the lines of moderate or independent Republicans, or along the lines of moderate or conservative Democrats."

there are a few but most here are skeptics.

lastly, my tribe is not represented ..... i want reparations :poke:
 
dmp said:
It's not him, it's God. God gives us a very accurate definition of how to tell if somebody really loves Him. I would contend it'd be impossible for somebody to proclaim Christ, yet embrace sin. Regardless of what they say, embracing Sin while proclaiming Christ means one has SERIOUS spiritual issues.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Fruits of the spirit.
 
Mariner said:
There's a tendency here on USMB for people to refer to stereotype liberals as anti-religion. There's also a tendency to talk in terms of a single left/right dichotomy on issues ranging from abortion to the war in Iraq to tax and economic policy. There's enormous support here for almost anything George Bush does, and very few people voicing skepticism along the lines of moderate or independent Republicans, or along the lines of moderate or conservative Democrats.

Basically, the authors look for the current large groupings of Americans in terms of religion and politics, and find what they call 12 tribes. The surprise here for USMB religious conservatives should be just how religious many liberals actually are.
Mariner.

Basically, the authors look for the current large groupings of Americans in terms of religion and politics, and find what they call 12 tribes. The surprise here for USMB religious conservatives should be just how religious many liberals actually are.

First, I don't belong to any "tribe". I'm a "citizen" of the United States. :salute:

Second, what "surprise"? I don't see any.

If you will take a closer look at the description of the "Religious Left" (14%) you will find that most are what I would call "Left Behind". Less than one-quarter report weekly worship attendance. That is dismal. Exactly how and where are they being "religious"?

The next large group that predominantly votes Democrat is what is described as the "Seculars" (11%). This group is "most uncomfortable when candidates talk about their personal faith". Again I am not surprised. This group is primarily composed of younger people who are in the phase of their lives when they challenge the belief systems of their parents and the religions in which they were raised. They are also primarily the group that is exposed to the liberal dogma now taught in the schools and colleges where they are being lured away from religion - rather successfully I might add, since young people are easily impressed with false idealism.

These two groups are hardly what I would call "religious" in nature. Together these two groups make up about 25% of the voters which corresponds with the number who compose the Far Left - i.e., the lefty liberals of the Democrat Party. There is no "surprise" as you claim. What we here at USMB typically refer to as liberals are definitely NOT that religious.
 
MissileMan said:
Who in hell are you to decide if someone who calls themself a Christian is "really" a Christian or not?

I use the words of Jesus Himself. Apparently you didnt notice the quotes.

Not to mention, the persons themselves described themselves in terms that leave no doubt they dont take religion all that serious. kinda like an insurance policy.

Go read the NT,
Go read the study.
 
dmp said:
It's not him, it's God. God gives us a very accurate definition of how to tell if somebody really loves Him. I would contend it'd be impossible for somebody to proclaim Christ, yet embrace sin. Regardless of what they say, embracing Sin while proclaiming Christ means one has SERIOUS spiritual issues.

When you say embrace, do you mean condone? Do you really have to actively seek out and destroy sin to be worthy of salvation, or is it enough to just not sin yourself?
 
MissileMan said:
When you say embrace, do you mean condone?
Yes - To condone sin one places their desires above those things of which God has instructed us to refrain; for our OWN good.

MissileMan said:
Do you really have to actively seek out and destroy sin to be worthy of salvation, or is it enough to just not sin yourself?

Salvation is a different issue. Christians are to ensure their lives are squared away - and to assist those who need it. Nobody can destroy sin. Sin happens because we are sinful by nature.
 
dmp said:
Yes - To condone sin one places their desires above those things of which God has instructed us to refrain; for our OWN good.

So, do you allow for a distinction between condoning sin and minding your own business?


dmp said:
Salvation is a different issue. Christians are to ensure their lives are squared away - and to assist those who need it. Nobody can destroy sin. Sin happens because we are sinful by nature.

Yeah, destroy was probably the wrong word...how about stop instead...same question.
 
MissileMan said:
So, do you allow for a distinction between condoning sin and minding your own business?

Knowingly allowing others to sin without trying to do something about it is cowardly. It's like those wussy boys around the country who own a .45, talk tough, yet know for a fact the guy next door is beating his wife, but do nothing about it. I'd also like to add that "Mind your own business," is often a euphamism for "I'm doing something wrong, but I want to do it anyway and you're not going to stop me."
 
Hobbit said:
Knowingly allowing others to sin without trying to do something about it is cowardly. It's like those wussy boys around the country who own a .45, talk tough, yet know for a fact the guy next door is beating his wife, but do nothing about it. I'd also like to add that "Mind your own business," is often a euphamism for "I'm doing something wrong, but I want to do it anyway and you're not going to stop me."

So much for the much touted concept of free will.

"Mind you own business" is more often a euphemism for "If I wanted your opinion, I'd beat it outta ya". ;)
 
MissileMan said:
So much for the much touted concept of free will.

"Mind you own business" is more often a euphemism for "If I wanted your opinion, I'd beat it outta ya". ;)

Right, free will, what a convenient excuse. I'm not about to sit here and attempt to get the entirity of Christian doctrine written into law. However, from the Christian perspective, failing to intervene when someone you know is repeatedly sinning is akin to standing by and watching someone die. Also, free will is the freedom God gave us to make our own desicions. However, one of those decisions we're allowed to make is to attempt to influence bad decisions away from others. That's no more a violation of free will than parents telling their kids what to do. The parents can't actually stop them from doing whatever they want. That's free will. They can, however, give them incentives and punishments to guide their decisions. That's good parenting.

Lastly, would you stand by and watch a friend of yours get addicted to heroine? I'm guessing that's a no. That's because you know that heroine will do a lot of damage to your friend in the long run. Christians don't just stand by and watch peole sin for the same reason.
 
MissileMan said:
When you say embrace, do you mean condone? Do you really have to actively seek out and destroy sin to be worthy of salvation, or is it enough to just not sin yourself?


One has to seek to become more Christlike, and sin is the enemy. We have to ask the Holy Spirit to give us the strength to desire to do away with sin. Of course it wont ever be perfect, but we should be improving all the time, allowing for some occasional setbacks.

Other sin can be addressed properly. Certainly we wouldnt want to support laws that incourage sin (same sex marriage), nor are we commanded to stay out of politics, "when in Rome, do as the Romans".

Tis true some Christians, as well as liberal atheists are control freaks.

That study, and its subsequent analysis, arent worth dog turds. Those people who claim to be Christian, but only attend church occasionaly and dont allow their spiritual beliefs to affect how they vote, are full of shit. Yea, I said it. They are full of shit.
 

Forum List

Back
Top