Article entitled: Religiously unaffiliated Americans are the new powerhouse political bloc. But only if they vote.]
Religiously unaffiliated voters may be the most important political group that no one talks about. Few constituencies have voted more strongly Democratic in recent elections. They represent a larger potential pool of voters than white evangelical Protestants — 23 percent of Americans are religiously unaffiliated today, while 17 percent are white evangelical Protestant. And the unaffiliated are growing at an unprecedented rate, more than doubling in size over the past two decades.
When my turn comes, I will be voting.
This is why, since my earliest days of getting out of church, I have advocated for understanding this group. I know some of them are self-proclaimed itinerant street preaches with Jesus complexes, but most of them are “spiritual but not religious” or something similar. Not to mention the next closest group which claims an affiliation but only goes on Easter and Christmas, or whatever. Non-believers see themselves as not part of this group, or as some special group that only encompasses something like 4%. They do that at their peril.
These unaffiliated peeps are mostly younger people and millennials. They don’t like abortion or gun control, but they want rights for lgbtq people and believe in helping out those in need. The really bad thing about them is, they only vote when it’s a race for the whitehouse. They don’t vote in the midterm elections or any of the local and state elections. That’s why we have a Democrat in the whitehouse and everything else is controlled by the GOP. Their voting patterns insure the obstructionist malarkey we are going through now.
How do we get them to fully engage in their voting rights?
The really bad thing about them is, they only vote when it's a race for the whitehouse. They don't vote in the midterm elections or any of the local and state elections. That's why we have a Democrat in the whitehouse and everything else is controlled by the GOP. Their voting patterns insure the obstructionist malarkey we are going through now.Ilf you look at history you'll see that second-term presidents often face a Congress controlled by the opposition party. There is much more to this phenomenon than religiously unaffiliated voters staying away from the polls.
How do we get them to fully engage in their voting rights?You could say that about a lot of groups. How do we get minorities and the poor voting?
Have you looked into gerrymandering Handyman? Look at Austin, well known for being progressive, but the Republicans have made districts that span way out to the burns, where the conservative voters. It’s how progressive MN voted in Michelle Bachman. There is a movement to change this system so it is unbiased, but it’s going to take time.
Article entitled: Religiously unaffiliated Americans are the new powerhouse political bloc. But only if they vote.] Religiously unaffiliated voters may be the most important political group that no one talks about. Few constituencies have voted more strongly Democratic in recent elections. They represent a larger potential pool of voters than white evangelical Protestants — 23 percent of Americans are religiously unaffiliated today, while 17 percent are white evangelical Protestant. And the unaffiliated are growing at an unprecedented rate, more than doubling in size over the past two decades. When my turn comes, I will be voting.The problem with religiously unaffuliated voters is that they are not in any way a cohesive group. We're all over the map. And we're not easily roped in. The only time we might vote enmasse is when a candidate refers to his or her religion excessively. If the candidate says god is telling him what to do, the religiously unaffilliated will run the other way as quiclkly as they can. But that's a negative force, not something that would really bring the religiously unaffiliated together in any positive sense. It's like herding cats, remember? Lois
I suspect that a large portion of the religiously unaffiliated are pretty much indifferent to anything other than their own self-centric lives. IOW, the only “ism” that they have much concern for is “me-ism”. (I prefer a “me-ist” to a lot of “less-benign-ists”. But I doubt they can be counted on for little things like civic duty.)
The really bad thing about them is, they only vote when it's a race for the whitehouse. They don't vote in the midterm elections or any of the local and state elections. That's why we have a Democrat in the whitehouse and everything else is controlled by the GOP. Their voting patterns insure the obstructionist malarkey we are going through now.Ilf you look at history you'll see that second-term presidents often face a Congress controlled by the opposition party. There is much more to this phenomenon than religiously unaffiliated voters staying away from the polls.
How do we get them to fully engage in their voting rights?You could say that about a lot of groups. How do we get minorities and the poor voting? Very true, and frustrating.
I suspect that a large portion of the religiously unaffiliated are pretty much indifferent to anything other than their own self-centric lives. IOW, the only "ism" that they have much concern for is "me-ism". (I prefer a "me-ist" to a lot of "less-benign-ists". But I doubt they can be counted on for little things like civic duty.)Why should the religiously unaffiliated be any more self-centered than anyone else? It seems to me that religious people arE far more self-centered than non-religious people. I know a lot of atheists, humanists and nones who are very civic minded--and they know more about government and politics than most religious people. I don't know where your ideas about them being self-centered come from. How does it manifest itself? What is it about not being religiously affiliated that would make people especially self-centered? There are plenty of ways to be civic-minded without a church affiliation. In fact, assuming one needs a religion to be civic minded is an insult to atheists and all nones generally. Why should that be? Can you explain it? It sounds as if you are one of those psople who thinks that people without religion must be immoral or generally apathetic to what is going on around them. Lois
These unaffiliated peeps are mostly younger people and millennials. They don't like abortion or gun control, but they want rights for lgbtq people and believe in helping out those in need. The really bad thing about them is, they only vote when it's a race for the whitehouse. They don't vote in the midterm elections or any of the local and state elections. That's why we have a Democrat in the whitehouse and everything else is controlled by the GOP. Their voting patterns insure the obstructionist malarkey we are going through now. How do we get them to fully engage in their voting rights?How do you know that's the only time they vote? I, and many if my friends are religiously unaffiliated and we vote in every election--even school board elections and many are members of and work for a political party. Do you have any vald statistics or are you are talking through your hat! Lois
But what do we make of the religiously unaffiliated? From what I gather, they’re a group who does not actively accept or reject any real concept of religion, so they’re not theist or atheist nor are they “undecided”. Do they just not consider religion an important enough topic to take a stance on? And should they be taking a stance? Since religion is still, despite enlightenment, a driving force and has the ability (if given the chance) to control the nation, is it the responsibility of the irreligious to step out from the oblivion and take a stance? I suppose I am asking is the irreligious position a good one to be in–is it an uninformed/uneducated stance or is it a wise place to be? From what I’ve seen in my little corner of the world, there is more damage to be done from being uniformed; while not actively accepting religion, they’re not informed enough to identify a snake creeping in and ready to bite either. It’s likely coming from the same people who say they’re “not political” either–this group is not good for making decisions.
But I do agree this seems to be the trend.
The problem with religiously unaffiliated voters is that they are not in any way a cohesive group. – LoisI wholeheartedly agree with this. The strength of the religious voter is that their unquestioning faith results in a single-mindedness of ignorance. The non-religious are more likely to research facts and more likely to have an ability to see merits in both sides of a given argument. As a result, each individual will come to their own conclusions and these conclusions will be varied.
I suspect that a large portion of the religiously unaffiliated are pretty much indifferent to anything other than their own self-centric lives. – Tim B. It seems to me that religious people are far more self-centered than non-religious people. – LoisI have to side with Lois on this one again. Based on my observations and experience (and I have 60+ years of that), religious people and others on “the right" have a tendency to react to things that affect them personally (duh guvment ain’t takin’ away my guns!) or their religious world view (God tells me homos are bad so they shouldn’t be allowed to live!). Outside of their guns and their gods, they are pretty indifferent (especially to those who don’t share their world view). Non-religious left leaning types are far more likely to NOT be indifferent to things outside of their “self-centric lives" such as the environment, not discriminating against minority groups, etc.
How do you know that’s the only time they vote? – LoisIt seems there are actually some statistics that indicate these groups are less likely to vote when only local issues are involved (which in some ways goes along with the previous point). The link between fighting Big Coal and Big Oil, saving National Parks and Planned Parenthood may not be local issues and so they may not see it as quite so important. Or maybe I’m wrong. I vote every chance I get.
But what do we make of the religiously unaffiliated? – FinallyDecidedI don’t think one can really consider it “a group" much less a cohesive group. It is a hodgepodge of people who make their own decisions whether it regards, religion, politics or otherwise. Similarly, they cannot be labeled either decisive or indecisive because they will be “all over the map".
There are certainly, I think, a lot of religious people are also "me-ists" who sometimes or often don religious garb. And it is probably also true, that as a political force, the religious are more powerful than the religiously unaffiliated, because they are more cohesive. The religious "me-ists" at least have a nominal bit of guiding influence. The unaffiliated "me-ists" have only their self-interest to guide them. Atheism, per se, by itself, conveys no sense of moral or civic superiority (although it probably does convey superior intellectual integrity, generally speaking.) There is nothing other than intellectual integrity that makes the population of atheists, a cohesive population. If atheists are only atheists, with no positive guiding belief system, they are, IMO, a limited force for good. But they at least don't believe supernatural bullshit. Those others, in the "religiously unaffiliated" category, don't even, necessarily, have that going for them. Sure, not all of the religiously unaffiliated are "me-ists", above all else. I am just saying that I suspect that a large portion of them are. Thus if you want the religiously unaffiliated to become a cohesive group, they have to have some common thing to believe in, e.g., humanism. If you want "me-ists", whether religiously affiliated or not to come under an umbrella of cohesiveness, they will need to be convinced of what's in it for them.I suspect that a large portion of the religiously unaffiliated are pretty much indifferent to anything other than their own self-centric lives. – Tim B. It seems to me that religious people are far more self-centered than non-religious people. – Lois
But what do we make of the religiously unaffiliated? From what I gather, they're a group who does not actively accept or reject any real concept of religion, so they're not theist or atheist nor are they "undecided". Not true. The rligiously unaffilated includes atheists who know exactly where they stand. The "religiously unaffiliated" label comes from polls that ask people if they have any religious affiliation. That doesn't mean only people who don't go to church.it includes everyone who has no religious affiliation. So it does not mean people who simply don't think religion is important enoough to think about. It includes passionate atheists as well. Do they just not consider religion an important enough topic to take a stance on? And should they be taking a stance? Since religion is still, despite enlightenment, a driving force and has the ability (if given the chance) to control the nation, is it the responsibility of the irreligious to step out from the oblivion and take a stance? I suppose I am asking is the irreligious position a good one to be in--is it an uninformed/uneducated stance or is it a wise place to be? From what I've seen in my little corner of the world, there is more damage to be done from being uniformed; while not actively accepting religion, they're not informed enough to identify a snake creeping in and ready to bite either. It's likely coming from the same people who say they're "not political" either--this group is not good for making decisions. But I do agree this seems to be the trend.The trend is that people are moving away from religion--all religion--in growing numbers. They are in any category you can imagine, from militant atheists to rational atheists, to humanists, to rationalists, to people who are just starting out on their journey away from religion to people who are wavering. It's wrong to dump them all into the same category. That would be like dumping everyone who claims to be religiously affiliated into the same category. That would include religious nuts, terrorists and people who go to church for social reasons alone. It could include people from every religion represented in the United States. Surely you don't think they all think alike, do you? Why assume all of the religiously unaffiliated do--or should?
I suspect that a large portion of the religiously unaffiliated are pretty much indifferent to anything other than their own self-centric lives. IOW, the only "ism" that they have much concern for is "me-ism". (I prefer a "me-ist" to a lot of "less-benign-ists". But I doubt they can be counted on for little things like civic duty.)That's exactly the way I see religious people. I suspect that a large portion of the religiously affiliated are pretty much indifferent to anything other than their own self-centric lives and their own belief systems. The only "ism" that they have much concern for is "me-ism," dressed up as selfless belief. But they can't be counted on for little things like civic duty except for making a false display of it. "Look at me being civically responsible and oh, so holy!" They like to pretend they are civic minded, but it's only PR. They are no more likely to be truly civic minded than the religiously unaffiliated. They are just more likely to be hypocrites. Their civic mindedness is simply part of their "holier-than-thou" pretence. You've been taken in, Tim. I thought you were smarter than that. Lois
There are certainly, I think, a lot of religious people are also "me-ists" who sometimes or often don religious garb. And it is probably also true, that as a political force, the religious are more powerful than the religiously unaffiliated, because they are more cohesive. The religious "me-ists" at least have a nominal bit of guiding influence. The unaffiliated "me-ists" have only their self-interest to guide them. Atheism, per se, by itself, conveys no sense of moral or civic superiority (although it probably does convey superior intellectual integrity, generally speaking.) There is nothing other than intellectual integrity that makes the population of atheists, a cohesive population. If atheists are only atheists, with no positive guiding belief system, they are, IMO, a limited force for good. But they at least don't believe supernatural bullshit. Those others, in the "religiously unaffiliated" category, don't even, necessarily, have that going for them. Sure, not all of the religiously unaffiliated are "me-ists", above all else. I am just saying that I suspect that a large portion of them are. Thus if you want the religiously unaffiliated to become a cohesive group, they have to have some common thing to believe in, e.g., humanism. If you want "me-ists", whether religiously affiliated or not to come under an umbrella of cohesiveness, they will need to be convinced of what's in it for them. Correct. Saying the religiously unaffiliated are not a cohesive group is no more correct than saying the religiously affiliated are a cohesive group. The religiously affiliated take in all religions, even the weirdest ones. If Christians, for example, were so cohesive there wouldn't be 100 Protestant denominations, all at each others throats, and at the throats of Catholics, as well.. You might try to make a case that Irish people are a cohesive group. They're all Christians, after all. Or Bosnian and Croatian Christians. They are no more cohesive than the religiously unaffiliated. One difference is that the religiously unaffiliated are not out gunning for each other as the religiously affiliated are. All in all, I prefer the religiously unaffiliated. Most of them have no ax to grind. Does that make them more self-centered than the religiously affiliated? LoisI suspect that a large portion of the religiously unaffiliated are pretty much indifferent to anything other than their own self-centric lives. – Tim B. It seems to me that religious people are far more self-centered than non-religious people. – Lois
I suspect that a large portion of the religiously unaffiliated are pretty much indifferent to anything other than their own self-centric lives. IOW, the only "ism" that they have much concern for is "me-ism". (I prefer a "me-ist" to a lot of "less-benign-ists". But I doubt they can be counted on for little things like civic duty.)That's exactly the way I see religious people. I suspect that a large portion of the religiously affiliated are pretty much indifferent to anything other than their own self-centric lives and their own belief systems. The only "ism" that they have much concern for is "me-ism," dressed up as selfless belief. But they can't be counted on for little things like civic duty except for making a false display of it. "Look at me being civically responsible and oh, so holy!" They like to pretend they are civic minded, but it's only PR. They are no more likely to be truly civic minded than the religiously unaffiliated. They are just more likely to be hypocrites. Their civic mindedness is simply part of their "holier-than-thou" pretence. You've been taken in, Tim. I thought you were smarter than that. Lois Lois, the hypocritically religious "me-sts", have, at least, their hypocrisy as a guiding force, i.e., some cohesion. e.g., They might vote for Ted Cruz, just to brag about it to their evangelical associates. When you say "You've been taken in, Tim.", who do you suspect has "taken me in"?
Does that make them more self-centered than the religiously affiliated?I don't think self-centeredness is relevant when discussing religious affiliated vs. non-affiliated. The percentage within each group is probably pretty close to the same (plus or minus your usual margin of error). The positive part of the trend is that those who are "certain" of things because their bible tells them so is in the decline. The unaffiliated are those who responded to survey questions asking what religion they were, and did not want to pick one from the list. Certainly people considering themselves atheists and agnostics would be in the group. Religious people who do not go to church or actively participate likely also were among those who declined to claim a religion. And certainly there would be those who were practitioners of a given religion but looking to change but have not yet decided (my sister was a disenchanted Roman Catholic and for a period of time was "unaffiliated" until she decided upon a different religion). And finally, there could be people who did not see their religion included on the list. While it would be wonderful to have this "group" vote as a block, especially against those who would impose their religions on us, it is at least something that there are increasing numbers of the "group" that thinks rather than blindly follows some dogma.
I have not argued that there are more or less self-centered people between the groups "religiously affiliated" vs "non-religiously affiliated". I, also, did not bring up "cohesion", i.e., (in terms of this discussion) which group is more likely to vote as a bloc. But since "cohesion" was brought up, my point is that people who hold a common belief system (whether that belief is held sincerely or only superficially) are more likely to vote similarly, than people who hold no common belief system. Among the religiously unaffiliated, there ARE likely some persons who are still religious, but are just not affiliated. I agree that it is a step in the correct direction, for anyone to escape the bonds of a particular dogma. But if they are still religious, they are still bound to some degree by a supernatural belief system. Bottom line, is that, IMO, a common, non-supernatural, clear, positive, belief system is necessary for the best functioning of our society (to the extent that we are going to be collectively effected by how people vote). AND among "me-ists" (and I suspect they are ubiquitous) there must come a realization that justly empowering and benefiting all, is also, ultimately, what is in their own best self-interests.Does that make them more self-centered than the religiously affiliated?I don't think self-centeredness is relevant when discussing religious affiliated vs. non-affiliated. The percentage within each group is probably pretty close to the same (plus or minus your usual margin of error). The positive part of the trend is that those who are "certain" of things because their bible tells them so is in the decline. The unaffiliated are those who responded to survey questions asking what religion they were, and did not want to pick one from the list. Certainly people considering themselves atheists and agnostics would be in the group. Religious people who do not go to church or actively participate likely also were among those who declined to claim a religion. And certainly there would be those who were practitioners of a given religion but looking to change but have not yet decided (my sister was a disenchanted Roman Catholic and for a period of time was "unaffiliated" until she decided upon a different religion). And finally, there could be people who did not see their religion included on the list. While it would be wonderful to have this "group" vote as a block, especially against those who would impose their religions on us, it is at least something that there are increasing numbers of the "group" that thinks rather than blindly follows some dogma.
my point is that people who hold a common belief system (whether that belief is held sincerely or only superficially) are more likely to vote similarly, than people who hold no common belief system.I agree wholeheartedly with that point.