A new Pew Survey on politics and religion (summary here, full report here) has some good news and some bad news. The good news is that the number of Americans who would be deterred from voting for an atheist candidate has dropped in the last nine years. Here’s the plot:
The bad news: over half of Americans would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he/she doesn’t believe in God, and only 6% would be more likely to vote for an atheist. In fact, if you look at a number of characteristics that candidates could have, you find atheism near the bottom in terms of acceptabilily:
In fact, in terms of making people less likely to vote for you, not believing in God is substantially “worse” than being gay, a Mormon, a Muslim, or “having used marijuana in the past” (really, who hasn’t?), as well having had extramarital affairs in the past—like many of U.S. Presidents in the 20th century, including Warren Harding, Eisenhower, FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton, Of course, all bets are off for atheists who have smoked dope—if those facts become known.
Which of course brings us to Bernie Sanders. I am absolutely convinced that, like me, he’s a “secular Jew,” that is, an atheist who feels some ties to Jewish culture. He’s never claimed to believe in a real God, and, despite strong pressure on the campaign trail to avow theism, he says things like this (reported by The Washington Post):
“I am not actively involved with organized religion,” Sanders said in a recent interview.
Sanders said he believes in God, though not necessarily in a traditional manner.
“I think everyone believes in God in their own ways,” he said. “To me, it means that all of us are connected, all of life is connected, and that we are all tied together.”
. . . Larry Sanders sums up his brother’s views this way: “He is quite substantially not religious.”
That’s not even deism; if anything, it’s pantheism. But it sounds to me like atheism that’s been tricked out for political consumption. And that’s okay, because Sanders is the only candidate brave enough to tell the truth, even if it’s slightly embroidered. The Post goes on:
Every president since James Madison has made the pilgrimage across Lafayette Square to worship at St. John’s Church at least once, according to the White House Historical Association. Only three presidents, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, have been unaffiliated with a specific religious tradition, according to the Pew Research Center for Religion and Public Life. And President Obama and his predecessors have regularly hosted clergy for White House prayer sessions.
The Post article has a lot more detail about Sander’s religious upbringing, such as it was. At least he was bar mitzvahed, which I wasn’t (I flunked out of Hebrew school.)
As for Hillary, well, she’ll probably get the nomination, and I’ll vote for her, but I’m not convinced she has the vision to be a great President. Nor do I don’t like the millions she’s made giving speeches for the likes of Goldman Sachs (why would corporations pay her unless they thought they’d get something for it?), and she’s on the hawkish side. She’s deliberately distorted Sanders’s positions on guns and health care over the last few weeks. Plus she’s not shy about avowing a belief in God:
Sanders’s chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, emphasized her lifelong affiliation as a Methodist during an exchange Monday with voters in Iowa. Clinton did not mention Sanders, but her words underscored the stark contrast between her more traditional approach and that of her rival.
“I am a person of faith. I am a Christian,” Clinton said. “I am a Methodist. I have been raised Methodist. I feel very grateful for the instructions and support that I have received starting in my family but through my church.”
Such shameless pandering to the faithful, but that’s what the candidates do (except for Bernie). To me, saying you’re a “person of faith” is not a virtue but a character flaw.
Meanwhile, two other bits of information from the Pew poll. Here’s how two groups of interest, the “nones” (those lacking formal religious affiliation) and black Protestants, view the candidates. Sanders ranks higher than Clinton among the nones (and, of course, the Republicans rank abysmally), while Clinton does far better than Sanders (and tremendously better than Republicans) among blacks. And it’s the black vote that may swing the South for her among Democrats, primary victories that will be crucial in securing her the nomination:
Finally, a bit of additional mixed news: most Americans think that religion is losing influence in American life—which happens to be true—but a bit over half think that’s a bad thing, while only 13% think it’s a good thing. Here are the data from 2012, 2014, and this month:
On the other hand, more people seem to be wanting politicians to talk more about their faith. That puzzles me.
h/t: several readers for the Pew link and Diane G. for the WaPo link.
sub
>>In fact, the only worse things you do to turn off voters are being gay, a Mormon, a Muslim, or, surprisingly, “having used marijuana in the past” (really, who hasn’t?), and having had extramarital affairs in the past
Per the chart, those things aren’t worse–they’re much better. Atheist is at the bottom of the list in terms of causing “no” votes and having the fewest “wouldn’t matter” votes.
Yes, I misread them. Will fix, thanks!
Jerry, how did you score on your SATs? 🙂
Yes, I caught that as well. Thanks for being observant!
Perhaps that statistic includes people who want to know exactly what the candidates believe so voters can better assess how likely they are to throw out church/state separation, make decisions based on superstition, and/or push the red button in order to jump start Armageddon and usher in the happy happy reign of Jesus. Know your enemy.
Question: Some atheists seem to be rooting for Sanders, for reasons as above, but aren’t you afraid he’d be more likely to lose to the Republican nominee?
Globally it would be “most people”, at a guess.
Oops 1: This was supposed to be a general comment.
Oops 2: I had a general reaction, it wouldn’t be relevant for the election.
Against a general Republican nominee, and compared to a general Democratic alternative? Probably. However, I don’t think that it can be taken for granted that (socialist, probably atheist) Sanders would fare worse (or better) than Clinton, a figure that conservatives have been demonizing for decades. I’m also less concerned about electability, because I genuinely think Cruz and Trump are unelectable in a general election.
All that said, I am unenthusiastic about Sanders or Clinton. I’m backing Sanders because of Clinton’s hawkishness, and foreign policy is the area that the president has the most sway over (especially given a Republican Congress), but I’m not a True Sanders Believer. I would tepidly vote for either in the general. Either one would face continued Congressional gridlock.
If Elizabeth Warren were running, I’d be a whole lot more enthusiastic about this election.
Sanders polls better against Republicans than Clinton, at least he did when trailed Clinton by a large amount.
I think the less extremist Republicans would vote for Sanders over Cruz or Trump, actually.
You raise a good point about voting your conscience vs voting strategically. In Canada, we really wanted our last PM out so many voted strategically but that’s because we have a wretchedly undemocratic first past the post system. I would have voted more left than I did because I thought the candidate I voted for take a seat from the PCs.
I think there is a similar thing going on here – could America end up with Trump as president if Bernie was the candidate. I still think he’d get votes. I don’t see people voting Republican because he is a socialist but who knows….Americans do weird things. I still like Bernie best though.
Hilary is more than just a Methodist. She is tied to “The Family” on capital hill. It’s another dominionist ideology, though this sect panders exclusively to the powerful, not the weak timid types Jesus wasted all that time and miracles on.
http://tinyurl.com/zk688xp
“He is quite substantially not religious.”
Love that!
If Bernie should get the nomination, the Republicans will press him very hard on the religion issue. It makes good politics and they would be foolish not to do so. The poll shows that 51% of the public is less likely to vote for a candidate who doesn’t believe in God. I suspect that he will attempt to waffle on the issue and if he is forced to say something, he will probably say he is Jewish while being ambiguous about being a believer and simultaneously attempting to quickly change the topic. I can only see the religion issue hurting him; but the question is to what extent. Perhaps most who would not vote for him on the religion issue wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances because he claims to be a socialist (which he really isn’t, but that’s a topic for another discussion) or is simply running as a Democrat. Still, in a close election the religion issue could be the difference between winning and losing.
Evangelicals love Jews though. The stats (I’m talking about another Pew survey here) show that they have overwhelming positive feelings towards Jews, which aren’t returned in kind. Republicans also have far more positive feelings towards him personally than Clinton. I think his biggest problem would be the socialist label.
“Evangelicals love Jews though.”
That’s just because Jews dominate their favorite book of fairy tales. The chosen people of the promised land. That would make almost anyone wish they could be a Jew. Even republicans.
Yeah, that was my assumption too. I’ve seen documentaries of Evangelicals who spend harvest season on fundamentalist kibbutzes (is that the plural?) and are given very little respect (though not otherwise treated badly) and not allowed to go into all sorts of places. But their faces shine with the idea of the work they’re doing to bring about the Second Coming.
I wonder how things are going with that red calf.
Yes there is that! Is it because they want a Jew in charge to bring on the apocalypse? It sounds like a comedy.
Evangelicals “love Jews” but look down on and sometimes outright hate Jewish people. They have a horrid cognitive dissonance over it, and this, too, they blame on individual Jews, whenever they can.
“Oh, I love The Jews! That one, though, is so not humble or deserving! That one’s gonna burn in hell! And the rest, too! But, God loves them! And so, then, must we. I love The Jews!”
That’s true too. They love Jews as a concept, but in reality they tend to be a bit less affectionate.
They want Israel powerful so they build a new temple on the Dome of the Rock, destroying the mosque that’s already there in the process. They think this fulfills the “predictions” in Revelation. The next step is Jesus coming back, causing all the “good” Jews to convert to Christianity and, of course, then we get Armageddon.
Their eschatological mindset would be a joke, except their behaviour makes me worry about them making the “prophecy” self-fulfilling.
I was more amused with “Jew in charge”. Like the sitcom “Charles in Charge” from the 80s
Lol.
One thing that really shocks me is how many Christians don’t know Jesus was Jewish. A neighbor of mine didn’t believe it, so she asked her brother. He’s not the sharpest tack, and he already knew it, so then she believed me.
My education challenged Catholic relatives didn’t know. They thought he was “the first Christian”. I think this is when my dad called one of them on calling Jews “Christ killers”. We have very little contact with those people in our family and I’m relieved to report my dad was adopted!
Wow! And that “Christ-killer” bit came from the era of Constantine. He adopted and militarized the Christian faith, and that’s when antisemitism became an official part of the doctrine, along with the (military) idea of taking over the world.
If I’m not mistaken, Muhammad came after that, stole all the ideas and twisted them to fit his own cultural style better.
It irks me when people write that Muhammad took all his ideas from the Jews. Jews certainly didn’t invent antisemitism, nor did even the biblical Hebrews try to take over the world. They took a region, yes, and then stopped. There’s nothing I’m aware of that suggests anything more.
If only you knew how many in the American military are of that Armageddon mentality!
I’m not sure I want to – I probably wouldn’t be able to sleep!
It’s okay. You’ll “sleep” just fine, once they hear the voice of Jesus telling them to start shooting off those US military nuclear fire crackers. We all will. That will be that.
Interesting. I note also:
1. Both Black Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated think Trump would be a terrible president.
2. The support of the unaffiliated for Republicans is generally for the more establishment candidates.
3. People have strong views about religion in the US – being an atheist is the lowest % of “wouldn’t matter” in presidential choice, and the highest % of “less likely.”
The people who have the power to elect the most powerful person in the world do not, in general, appear to have the judgement to make that decision. Instead, rather a lot of them have been sucked in by the emoty rhetoric and hate speech of Trump and Cruz. I’m just glad those people don’t comment here.
Not really much chance of seeing them here. Both reading and writing are required.
Are there any triply-capable people here – who can simultaneously walk, chew gum, and (read-or-write)? That would be scary for the average mouth-breather.
😀 Randy and Aidan.
[Crump]
Whuzzat? Sorry, I just walked into the wall.
I wonder how much people “say” that things matter correlates with how they actually vote. For example, military service always scores well as a desirable characteristic, but in numerous cases (prominent examples include Reagan vs GHW Bush – primary, vs Carter, general, GHW Bush vs Clinton, Clinton vs Dole, BushJr vs Gore, Bush Jr vs Kerry) the draft dodger beat the candidate with (in several cases distinguished) military service. Obama also beat McCain. Obama could not be considered to be a draft dodger, however, lack of military service didn’t hurt him or benefit his opponent.
I don’t think any single issue is probably as important as breaking down component of polls might make us think. I agree that the godiness of American politics is pretty mind-blowing, but I’d bet that the major factors that decide elections under normal circumstances relate most to domestic pocketbook issues.
I don’t know why this should be surprising. It’s part of our social instincts to trust those who think more like us. Religion rises out of the same unspoken social synchronicity that other cultural artifacts do, and this applies especially to the far more subjective areas of ‘morality’. We never know another person’s mind, but shared belief structures are a surrogate for that. (Consider that Democrats would be much more likely to vote for a Democrat, even if they know nothing else about him).
BTW in a recent Pew research poll in Iowa showed Trump as the least religious (37% ‘Not at all’ vs 22% for Hillary).
For the record, I’ve never even tried marijuana, though I may do so if I ever visit Colorado.
As long as being religious is the norm, politicians should talk about their religious views. I want to hear what notions candidates have about the role their religions should play in decision making. We don’t need another GW Bush who “consults a higher father”.
Another reason why I am liking Bernie more and more. But I am concerned that his candor will hurt his chances of being elected against a Republican.
For that matter, I have doubts that Trump is religious. I think his pandering to that club is sheer fibbery.
I was talking about the current election with my ex, and we both came to the conclusion that Bernie probably could never implement his crazier ideas, so he’s probably a safe candidate.
“Every president since James Madison has made the pilgrimage across Lafayette Square to worship at St. John’s Church at least once, according to the White House Historical Association.”
My favourite story about Washington (I’m not sure if it’s true) is that, when told by a priest that he (Washington) couldn’t keep accompanying his wife to church unless he took communion, he stopped going to church altogether.
A gay, feminist, atheist, dope smoking, dyslexic black woman. Quite possibly the best candidate for this country, hands down.
Don’t forget “socialist” in either the real sense or the American sense.
I forgot, cultural Jew too. My hommies.
What’s a hommie? (hommy?)
I think Kevin means “homey”, as in home-boy or someone from the local neighborhood or, at least, sharing the cultural style of the local neighborhood.
The term “homey” hit mainstream when a black comedian used it in a popular skit. I forget the context, but the laugh line was, “Homey don’t play dat!” It translates roughly to, “People of my neighborhood/culture don’t fall for (or pull) that trick.”
My greatest concern regarding Hilary Clinton is Jeff Sharlot’s uncovering of her connection to “Dominionist Central” (my name for it). They don’t favor women, but they’re happy to use a women whom they can control, twisting her their way by way of Christian belief, and twisting Christian belief to take over the world. These same Domionists at “Central” reach out to senators, congressmen and congresswomen, high ranking diplomates from afar as well as USA ones when they can. And, they make videos of these followers to convince others to follow along, too. The most famous video I’m aware of, outside their private circles, was the one taken inside the Pentagon, during duty hours, including high ranking officers in uniform.
If Hilary is one of them and/or controlled by them, she’ll be nearly as dangerous as Ted Cruz.
And now, for a laugh or guffaw on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kFOsguy3qg.
“Dominionist Central” = “The Family”.
These are the friendly folk behind National Prayer Breakfasts and the anti-gay laws in Uganda.
Yes! Thank you for naming them!
HC was raised Republican and had a slow conversion to liberalism in college, largely due her perception of veiled racism and dishonest campaigning in the Republican party. As an undergrad she described herself to one of her profs as “mind conservative but heart liberal”.
Unlike other conservatives-turned-liberal like Garry Wills or Joan Didion, I’ve never been convinced HC had a really coherent political vision.
Her hawkishness and faith-parading don’t altogether surprise me.
All we ever get to do in American is vote on the lessor of evils. Voting against the other guy is always the way it works. If you take the time to dissect your candidate all the way down you wouldn’t vote. And that is always the big problem/question anyway since only about 50% vote. The lack of voting turnout by the minorities is why we have such a load of republicans in congress anyway.
Hmmm, a hypothesis presents itself.
Allegedly (I’ve not cared much about the details, but the proposition seems reasonable), learning a second language is good for a child’s IQ. Whether that is a selection effect (children with higher IQs are more likely to try/ succeed with learning a second language), or cause and effect (learning a second language improves ones IQ) isn’t interesting.
The implication of Jerry’s statement above is that a non-Hebrew speaking child must learn a large amount of Hebrew in order to pass the bar mitzvah. IIRC, the Pentateuch (?) should be able to be read in Hebrew, and there’s some sort of comprehension test too – I forget the details, if I ever knew them. That would suggest that children who grow up with Hebrew as a native tongue and who pass the bar mitzvah would have a detectably (?) lower IQ than those who learn some other tongue from the tit, and have to learn Hebrew as a young person.
Just a thought. It’d probably require cooperation from Israeli schools to carry out the experiment. Which isn’t likely since it’s likely to show god-bothering in a poor light.
Ah, but most of those who learn Hebrew from childhood, whether Israeli or not, and whether they get very far in their Hebrew studies or not, tend to be Jewish. The Jewish culture is one of questioning things, thinking things through, and parsing apart stories, albeit to come to good moral lessons, but just the same, I think the missing association is the culture.
I understand Christians are raised to shut up and do what their told, because asking too many questions will show that the Emperor’s New Clothes don’t exist.
Jewish Culture practically dares us to keep believing.
Oops! I meant, “dares us to stop believing!”
On the other hand, IF I have a reasonable understanding of Israeli culture, the ones who bring up their children speaking only Hebrew are likely to be near the far end of the wingnut spectrum. Most of the population will speak their culturally-distinct tongue (most likely Russian, followed by English, then minor other languages) and have Hebrew for official and religious reasons.
So comparing Hebrew-speaking monoglots with Hebrew-speaking polyglots is comparing a number of complicating factors as well as the language count.
No. Those who are “at the far end of the wingnut spectrum”, as you put it, protect Hebrew as too sacred. They speak in Yiddish as much as possible, saving Hebrew for prayer. And many are not wingnuts, just very observant of Jewish laws and customs. The real “wingnuts” are not popular with others around them, even others who look and dress the same, exactly because they are “wingnuts.”
Those whose parents immigrated to Israel speak Hebrew as their first language. They’re like the children of immigrants who came to America and directed their children to focus on being American and fitting.
I am curious, though: Where did your ideas come from?
Well, one datum was spending a couple of days in Israel (I’m trying to remember where – within a couple of hours of Ben Gurion) when the commonest language which I could identify being spoken was Russian.
But I’ll have to admit to not having knowingly spoken to a Jew or an Israeli (PC(E) excepted) since I was working in Israel. If they’re around, they don’t wear flags.
On the other hand, we do see plenty of what is going on in Israel in the papers and the news.
Be sure to keep this in mind: News agencies are in business. They intend to make a profit. That means selling advertising, which is based on selling their news wares to a population large enough and fitted to the advertisers’ products well enough to get those advertisers to fork out bucks. Some even charge readers for their news output, and that adds greater intent to write something that fits the readers’ biases.
Ever since “The Arab-Israeli Conflict” became “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict”, the greatly outnumbered Israelis stopped being the underdog and became the prime propaganda target of the Arabs, while the so-called Palestinians became pawns in their own right. The latter are being played, manipulated into keeping the issue in the headlines. They do this as martyrs, but the reality is that they are dying so their leaders can receive billions of donated dollars.
Were those dollars put into infrastructure and real education (not “kill the Jews” indoctrination), the Palestinians could become such a good, local business partner with the Israelis, the rest of the Middle East could start worrying — most especially as their oil revenues begin to wane.
You have advertising-driven news agencies? How bizarre.
It’s the norm, here. They’ve got to make money somehow, even if only enough to cover expenses.
You don’t pay for them through your taxes? Well, you do pay for information services through your taxes. If you choose to pay for others through advertising …
It was a big deal that Kennedy became President because he was (gasp!) Catholic! It’s funny to me because most of our PMs in my lifetime have been Catholic. No one gives a crap what they do religion wise until it starts messing with public policy (which my last Evangelical PM flirted with doing).
I’d love to see a secular Jew in the Whitehouse because not only would it shake things up, but you’d have a President that would probably kill off all those stupid religious things like the prayer breakfast. And who doesn’t want to hear Bernie say how stupid the prayer breakfast is? It would be like Larry David complaining about it.
1+
I remember reading some of US politician or the like a few years back saying that Canadians discriminate against Christians in public office in a way that Americans don’t. The editorial response was (as was appropriate at the time): Our prime minster’s name translates to John (the) Christian. So, really now?
If the American polity elects to the presidency a septuagenarian socialist Jew with an outer-borough accent from a backwater state with one electoral vote, I will be as proud of my country as Michelle Obama and I were on election night 2008. I will also be proud if, at long last, my country nominates and elects a woman to lead the executive branch of government.
(My desire to see a Jew in the White House, has nothing to do with religion — is, indeed, inversely proportional to any candidate’s religious fervency, Jew or gentile — and everything to do with this nation’s symbolic victory over historical prejudice. I’d have similar feelings about electing a secular Muslim or secular Mormon — if any such creature there be — to serve in the West Wing.)
The thing that endears me to Bernie (aside from his leftist politics!) is that he’s got no bullshit in him. Even when he’s tried to dissemble about his gun-control record — the kind of run-of-the-mill dissembling your average politician tosses off before his or her second cup of coffee every morning — he sucked at it since his heart wasn’t in it.
I find that Bernie has a certain gruff charm on the campaign trail; but he has none of the smarmy unctuousness that passes for charm in other politicians. He strikes me as the most sincere politician to seek the presidency in my lifetime, exceeding even the previous record-holder in that regard, George McGovern. Aside from his family, Bernie appears to have few interests other than public policy. He really does live up to Hillary’s claim of waking up every morning thinking about what can be done for America’s middle and working classes. (I can’t imagine Bernie in the company of other pols and lobbyists schmoozing his way through 18 holes at Burning Tree Country Club, can you?)
As said, I also long to have a woman in the Oval Office, and would be perfectly content to have it be Hillary. I’m willing to accept at face value her claim now to be a committed progressive (despite her and Bill’s having gutted what Howard Dean called “the democratic wing of the Democratic Party” with their DLC-triangulating, Sister-Souljah-bashing, welfare-slashing previous stint in the White House).
But Hillary quite plainly lacks Bernie’s essential sincerity (and lacks her husband’s politically savvy, lip-biting ability to feign it). She has been in the public eye for so long, and has struck so many compromises (both political and personal) since she and Bill finished working on the McGovern campaign in the ’70s and packed their Ivy-League degrees off to Arkansas to launch Bill’s political career, that she has separated from herself and is no longer capable of committing completely to anything but her own political ambition. (This, rather than Benghazi or her emails or any other specific instance of her disingenuousness, is the essence of her “dishonesty” issue with the American electorate.)
I nevertheless like and respect Hillary, even if somewhat ambivalently. And I do believe that (unlike Donald Trump and the other cynics seeking the GOP nomination) she does have core principles she cares about deeply. But in any direct conflict between those principles and her political interests — well, does anyone really doubt which way that one comes out?
I apologize for the length of the above comment. It’s been percolating in my subconscious and, upon reading Jerry’s OP, guess it came spewing out. Sorry if I splashed any on ya; feel free to send me the cleaning bills.
Personally I hope Bernie wins, it’s the best hope for the US and the World, if Clinton wins, it will be the same old story on Wall St , there’s no way she will bite the Hand that feeda her, after all she has been paid 2.5 Million in Speaking Fees this last Year, nice work if you can get it, Bernie on the other hand was paid about 1400 Dollars for three engagements which he promptly gave to Charity, If i could Vote in your Election there’s only one person I would vote for and thats Bernie Sanders.