According to Gallup, John McCain trails Barack Obama by 25 points among voters for whom religion is not "an important part of [their] daily life". McCain leads by 5 points among those who answer that question in the affirmative.
These sorts of numbers are generally described as a problem for the Democratic candidate. However, as Ruy Teixeira pointed out four years ago, if you had to pick a sign of this divide to be on, it might be on the side of the secular. That is because by almost all indicators, religious participation in the United States is decreasing. According to a Pew poll, 45 percent of Americans now completely agree with the statement that "prayer is an important part of my daily life", down from a peak of 55 percent in 1999. (There does appear to have a bit of a "God Bounce"/mini-revival in the mid-late 1990s -- not so much in the number of religious Americans, but in the activity and enthusiasm of those that do practice).
Moreover, the younger generation is less religious than the older generation. 19 percent of those born after 1977 say they are atheist or agnostic, as compared with 11 percent of Boomers (born 1946-1964), and 5 perecnt of pre-Boomers (born before 1946).
Barack Obama, of course, does need to at least hold his own among actively religious voters, who constitute 65 percent of the electorate according to Gallup. He is able to do so thanks to substantial support from African-American and Latino voters, while trailing McCain by 25 points among actively religious, non-Hispanic whites. Nevertheless, if these generational trends hold, then each year a coalition based on actively religious voters will become marginally less successful.
6.14.2008
McCain's Atheist Problem?
@ 12:56 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments
Hi, this is unrelated, but I had a question about Obama's win percentage and wasn't sure where else to put it. The three states that are really close according to your averages are Ohio, Michigan, and Nevada, where each candidate has a 50% chance of winning. Whichever candidate takes two of these states wins the election if every other state goes to the person most likely to win it. That being said, how can Obama have a 54.8 win percentage? Shouldn't it be exactly 50%?
Nate, you just made my whole day with this headline. Thank you.
Anonymous--
You're making the false assumption that the candidate that is ahead in the state will win that state 100% of the time. That's not the case. If Obama's running better in the states McCain is ahead in than McCain runs in the states Obama is ahead in, the probabilities still favor Obama.
Curiously, how would this be any different from previous elections...I know this is a stereotype but wouldn't atheists tend to support liberal ideology instead of conservative ideology? It is an interesting stat but I don't think it is that important.
I have to disagree on the headline (as much as I like the sentiment). A person who answers "no" to the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?" is not necessarily an atheist. I assume you know this and you're just being snarky. But for us athiests out here, we'd rather not have our views conflated with the masses who have a god-belief but still answer "no" to the above question.
Eh. I suppose I just sound like a cranky atheist. I don't mean it that way, but I do think that your title distracts from the interesting findings of the poll.
An unrelated question:
Will you continue with the Burrito Bracket?
I actually never ate a Burrito, but since I read the blog, I´m thinking about where to get a Burrito in Hamburg, Germany.
"atheists tend to support liberal ideology instead of conservative ideology?"
This is purely anecdotal, but most atheists I know lean libertarian rather than liberal. They're small government, anti-tax, and socially libertarian. That tends to mean that they're independent voters that can be courted by either major party successfully.
Quick typo check - "Atheist Problem" not "Athiest Problem" - though for one macabre second I read "McCain's Achiest Problem" and wondered which of his limbs was hurting him the most...
seems like there's a problem comparing the percentage of non-religious young people with the percentage of non-religious boomers. you'd want to compare to the number of boomers who were non-religious at that age. I'd suspect that people are somewhat likely to leave religion when young and return to it later.
Isn't this actually a marked improvement vs. Bush for McCain?
Alex-
I'm a 2nd generation atheist, and I don't really mind so much being "lumped in" with the merely less religious. In the spectrum from atheist to agnostic to "spiritual", we're all essentially unaccepting of an orthodoxy or dogma of religious views - and that underlying attitude probably better captures a pattern of group/block voting than parsing out into the specific subgroups.
I've also noticed there's no real political pattern to other atheists I meet. Usually they vote they way they do not for the standard reasons.
Actually, as a conservative atheist, I don't know many people like me.
Actually, as an atheist, I don't know many people like me. Hearing that nearly 20% of my age group identifies as atheist/agnostic is far outside any number I've seen scientifically quoted, or personally experienced.
I'm not entirely sure that one can assume that since the younger generation is less religious, soon a larger portion of the overall population will be less religious. There's at least a lot of anecdotal evidence that people get more religious as they get older - are there any reliable figures on this?
The interesting aspect (to me, at least) of this is that religion is more clearly an important part of Obama's life than it is for McCain. Senator Clinton is even more actively involved in daily religious activities, but I dare say that she is even more unpopular with "religious" voters.
This is not really surprising, though. Religious voters preferred Reagan, perhaps the least religious modern President to Jimmy Carter, the most religious.
Gallup found that, based on its May tracking polls, the small block of Americans who are atheists with no religion at all back Obama 67% to McCain's 27% (a 40-point margin).
Apparently, atheists recognize one of their own after Barack's private remark to San Francisco millionaires that people cling to religion out of bitterness about their life situation. If he is an atheist at heart, it would explain why Barack was never concerned about Trinity's twisted theology, since atheists consider all religion a scam.
Gallup found that, based on its May tracking polls, the small block of Americans who are atheists with no religion at all back Obama 67% to McCain's 27% (a 40-point margin).
Apparently, atheists recognize one of their own after Barack's private remark to San Francisco millionaires that people cling to religion out of bitterness about their life situation. If he is an atheist at heart, it would explain why Barack was never concerned about Trinity's twisted theology, since atheists consider all religion a scam.
I think it'd be interesting to see how nonreligious voters have voted in elections in the past. While the change among nonreligious voters is probably slower to take effect, it could easily be that the net result with nonreligious voters turned off by Republicans makes up for the religious voters drawn to them through increasing entanglement with religion.
The 25 point margin among nonreligious individuals will more than make up for 5 point margin among religious ones.
I definitely support the overall point though - while reporters obsess over small margins among working class or uneducated voters, you never see any mention of a huge 25 point margin among a significant portion of voters. I've never once seen any efforts (or call for efforts) to 'court' nonreligious voters the way you see for every other group.
I thought this comment at Matt Yglesias's blog was interesting: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/barack_obamas_lonely_hearts_cl.php#comment-2346401
Apparently, the marriage gap is an amazingly good predictor of how red versus blue a state is. Do you use something like this in the regression analysis already?
The reason presidential candidates don't court atheists is the same reason that all candidates (no matter how liberal and pro-abortion they are) say they believe in God -- no openly-declared atheist can be elected president. Period.
"This is purely anecdotal, but most atheists I know lean libertarian rather than liberal. They're small government, anti-tax, and socially libertarian. That tends to mean that they're independent voters that can be courted by either major party successfully."
That number that somebody cited about Obama leading by 40 points among actual atheists seems pretty in line with what I'd think. In the Bay Area, which is probably the most atheist metro in the nation, there are very few libertarians. As an atheist, I will tell you that the majority of the atheists I know (and I know a lot of them, being from the east bay) are social democrats. Atheists tend to be far more educated than any other group, and those who are well educated are disproportionately progressive, and more likely than average to be libertarian for that matter, so that's where both of those anecdotal experiences likely come from.
You'd be hard pressed to find 20% of people say they are atheists, especially to a pollster, but I think 20% is actually lowballing the amount for which religion doesn't play an important role in their life.
Among my mid-20s friends, church attendance or religion of any sort is the exception. Most wouldn't say they are 'atheist', but most either lean that way or simply don't care about religion.
That's strange since McCain seems to be the more secular of the two candidates. I hear Obama talking about God a lot more than I hear McCain doing it.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/
Surely if McCain wins that will prove there is no God -at least in America.
The reason Barack talks publicly about God and praying to Jesus so much is to try to counter the rumors that he is a Muslim (stemming from such things as his father and stepfather being Muslims and Trinity Church selling Nation of Islam DVDs).
I'm skeptical that it means even what Yglesias says it does. He rules out the hypothesis that the Dem preference among unmarrieds is simply due to age, by comparing the vote preferences of 18-29 year-old married and ummarried persons.
But what he probably misses is that "early marriage" (which I would define here as below the median age at marriage) is probably negatively correlated with educational attainment. (Median age at first marriage is now about 27 for males and 25 for females.) Those who attend college and especially those who obtain graduate degrees are more likely to delay marriage than those who only get a high school education (or less).
You also have to look at multiple factors, including religiosity, region, race, and ethnicity.
In short, is there a "marriage gap" of any kind? Case not proved.
anon, that may be true, but Obama is where the secularists are on the issues -- they're generally pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, anti-clash-of-civilizations iraq war numbnuts types, and weren't easily snowed by the Bush admin early.
I know a lot of distinctly non-religious folk and a lot of avowed atheists, and while some of them lean generally libertarian on issues like the drug war and occasionally on taxes, they certainly recognize the threat the GOP presents in terms of police state. They're generally eyes-wide-open democrats, including opposing common party support for issues like video game ratings and software patents.
Squire Nate Dog, you seem to have Clinton poll numbers cluttering my screen - she is out of the race, right?
The current 538 analysis gives Obama several ways to win the presidency but McCain just one. With 252 projected electoral votes, Obama needs only Ohio or Michigan and Nevada while,at 244, McCain must win both Michigan AND Ohio. If Obama wins Michigan and loses the other two states, the electoral vote will be tied at 269 and then the Democratic majority Congress will select the president. Thus, Obama has three routes to the White House if the current numbers hold until November. This is much better than a 50/50 or 54.8% chance.
"If he is an atheist at heart, it would explain why Barack was never concerned about Trinity's twisted theology, since atheists consider all religion a scam."
wow. almost a record for how many smears can be fit into a single post. 'twisted theology'?
"The current 538 analysis gives Obama several ways to win the presidency but McCain just one. With 252 projected electoral votes, Obama needs only Ohio or Michigan and Nevada while,at 244, McCain must win both Michigan AND Ohio. If Obama wins Michigan and loses the other two states, the electoral vote will be tied at 269 and then the Democratic majority Congress will select the president. Thus, Obama has three routes to the White House if the current numbers hold until November. This is much better than a 50/50 or 54.8% chance."
You don´t understand the system of this site.
McCain could even win California, but he just has a 3.4% chacne to do that.
So McCain has a LOT of ways to the presidency. I´d say at least 20000 scenarios, and Obama has at least the same number.
Rasmus -- Given the currently favorable exchange rate, don't you think you should make a trip to California and have a burrito here? October is a great month for the weather in San Francisco. :-)
"if the current numbers hold til November"
Well, *that's* a BIG "if". chances are LOTS of things will change between now and election day. Which is why despite the seemingly very encouraging numbers from recent swing state polls - the overall odds hew frustratingly close to the 50% mark.
We just found out that there are 51,199,463,116,367 unique ways for John McCain to win; it's just that some of them are more likely than others.
Rasmus:
As much as I wish it weren't true, Mexican food just isn't any good in Europe. In fact, southern California is the only place I've visited where there's been truly superb Mexican food all around, although there's usually really good mexican restaurants anywhere there is a large pocket of Mexican immigrants and high-end restaurants also often do interesting stuff with the format, which, although not traditional, is still delicious.
If you want to try a burrito and actually have an enjoyable experience, you're gonna want to find a restaraunt that is able to get good-quality ingredients fresh and also at least had its recipes made by someone who understands Mexican cuisine. Because of these two reasons a lot of small Mexican restaurants opened by first-generation immigrants beat the pants off of high-end restaurants run by professional chefs.
As bemused suggested, it might be worth it to just travel somewhere that has good Mexican food. In my opinion Mexican food, when done right, is the best food in the world, and it's second only to the fantastic weather on the list of reasons why I doubt I could ever live anywhere else.
"Atheists tend to be far more educated than any other group, and those who are well educated are disproportionately progressive, and more likely than average to be libertarian for that matter, so that's where both of those anecdotal experiences likely come from."
Nicely said, Mac Z. The dirty little secret is that between 20-25% pf the country is non-religious (i.e. not Christian, Muslim or Jewish), and that group is the 2nd largest demographic in the country behind the 25-30% evangelicals. The principal reason why politicians do not play to them is that the liberals assume nonreligious will vote for them and conservatives know they won't. Also, while hard core religious types are very hostile towards nonbelievers, most nonbelievers do not have that level of hostility towards the religious types. Obama is a fascinating one, in that, like CS Lewis, he was an atheist until his mid-20s, having a religious epiphany at that point.
Mac Z, you are also dead-on in observing the direct correlation between education and both progressivism and non-adherence to dogma, whether religious or Marxist/Maoist. Every demagogue from Hitler to Mao to Pol Pot to George W Bush has known that the more educated and informed you are (as a general rule) the less susceptible you are to hateful and polarizing arguments, which is why the demagogues have always targeted the "intelligentsia" for opprobrium, attack, persecution and even slaughter.
It is pretty simple, really. If you think critically, you are less likely to be fooled by seemingly seductive arguments like "war on terror" or lebensraum. Just read the comments (thankfully rare on this site) of the rightwing attackers who fixate on flag pins, tangential acquaintanceships and middle names to bolster their cases.
Oh, I have to say that it is not accurate to leave out Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Missouri and Virginia in any discussion of swing states. And that is not even including states like NC and Georgia. Obama has the $$$ (from 2 million donors) to compete any place he wants, so McCain will be playing a lot of defense. From what I can see McCain HAS to take Michigan to have any shot, since it looks like Obama has a real shot at 5 or 6 of these and Ohio. As for Michigan, not much polling there lately, but Rasmussen, which tends to weight more Republican than some others, has Obama up 3, an economic conditions are dire there, favoring the candidate of change, so if I am McCain, I don't bank on it, unless he names Romney. If he does, he may take Michigan, and it may help him in Nevada, but the anti-Mormon bias among his right-wing base will lose him massive votes elsewhere, putting NC, Georgia, Florida and S Carolina in play...barring some "terror" scare or HRC rising from the dead to tear the party up in Denver, I don't see McCain's path to 270
"You'd be hard pressed to find 20% of people say they are atheists, especially to a pollster, but I think 20% is actually lowballing the amount for which religion doesn't play an important role in their life."
Why do so many people equate "non-religious" with "atheist"?
There are many people who do not believe in religion, but who DO believe in God and simply believe that one's relationship with God should develop on a personal level, unfiltered by religious dogma.
I repeat: non-religious does NOT necessarily equal atheism.
The very, very long-term problem is Democratic - in that the two core constituencies of the Democratic parties, while both growing, also ultimately grow apart - liberal elites, and minorities.
I just wanted to make a typical pedantic atheist point because I'm a typical pedantic atheist.
Someone referred to McCain as the more secular person which I think is incorrect. They meant that he was less religious which certainly appears to be accurate but secularism and religionism don't measure the same thing.
A person can be highly religious and be highly secular and a person can be slightly religious and highly unsecular. It's a matter of how much you mix your religion with your government.
John McCain has made the horrific comments that he thinks America was founded on Christian principles. I don't think he's actually dumb enough to believe it but he's pandering to those who do. Regardless, Obama has made statements that make it clear that his administration will be a secular one.
"I repeat: non-religious does NOT necessarily equal atheism."
True enough but in terms of actual interests those of the generic theists and atheists overlap greatly.
Both want as secular a government as possible.
Both tend to be more interested in policies that actually help people rather than policies that pretend to help while really just adhering to some religious dogma. Insert snarky comment about abstinence only sex ed here.
How are liberal elites growing away from minorities? I'd say the opposite is true, that the rise in minorities graduating from college closes the gap, and that more and more liberal elites are, in fact, minorities. I'd even bet that in most universities in democratic states most of the liberal elites are minorities and most of the minorities are liberal elites. And, although not true at the moment, in December the two most elite liberals in the country will be minorities.
"I repeat: non-religious does NOT necessarily equal atheism."
Perhaps, but in a country in which our elected officials are 99.9% Christian, Jewish and Muslim (one muslim, one atheist out of 535 fed reps, 50 governors and a prez and vp)
choosing other, whether atheist (10%) agnostic(7%) or other (Buddhist, Wiccan, etc...)means you have zero representation in public life. 85% of Americans believe in God, but that can range from Jehovah to Jesus to Gaia to the universe, so a fairly nebulous measure. More Americans would vote for a gay, mormon, muslim or lesbian than for an atheist, so that would tend to indicate a profound intolerance and prejudice on the part of the religious towards the non-religious.
Lastly, whether or not folks identify as atheist, 25% do identify as non-religious, i.e. not subscribing to an organized religion - so it is passing strange that 1/4 of the population does not exist as far as our politicians and media are concerned. It is the big lie of omission.
Minor correction to the people saying an electoral tie goes to Obama. It probably goes to McCain. The representatives from each state vote as a whole (i.e. all New York reps cast one collective vote). It doesn't matter who has the majority of the house, it matters who has the majority in each state. So even if there may be huge numbers of Democratic reps in a few populous states, the Republican majority in all the small states has a very good shot at winning anyway.
Great point Michael. Also, worth noting is that the one atheist congressman in history, Pete Stark, has masqueraded as a religious person his entire politcal career up until a year ago. As such, it is an accurate statement that the American public has never voted for an atheist for any federal office, though that will change this year when Stark gets re-elected.
Minor correction to the "minor correction." The current House or Representatives has 27 state delegations with Democratic majorities. Republicans are in the majority in 21 states and two House delegations are evenly split. Thus, again advantage to Obama in an electoral vote tie. The U.S. Senate will choose the Vice-President in case of a tied EC.
Worth noting that the larger proportion of agnostics and atheists among younger cohorts has always been true. I.e., it is not generational but a life-cycle phenomenon. Check data from 20 years ago, you will see the same pattern. People tend to get more religious, or at least more involved with religion as they age. It has in large part to do with having children, and wanting to set a good example.
@james: this is only true because God strikes down the heathens when they're young and spares the devout...
Correction to the correction of the correction: several states have Democratic majorities in their Congressional delegation but may still be hard pressed to vote for Obama (West Virginia and Arkansas come to mind), and the 50/50 delegations (Mississippi, Kansas and Arizona) seem safe for McCain, so in the case of 269-269 tie, Obama is not guaranteed to win the presidency.
As for the Vice Presidency, the Democratic caucus has 51 members, but that includes Joe Lieberman, who can be guaranteed to vote for McCain's running mate, which would result in a 50-50 tie. This would force Dick Cheney to cast the tie breaking vote, and we all know how that would turn out.
Thus, an electoral college would result in a Republican Vice President and a big question mark for President.
Two thoughts from a new commentator:
On the House vote should it be a tie. While Democrats do maintain a state delegation majority (and will hold such barring a miracle), I would suggest some of those will have a difficult time justifying a vote against the popular vote of their state. Some will hold, some may not. Would be the best political story in decades.
Back to the original story. As much as I enjoy the subjective nature of much of the science behind this website, this is an example of where the author's political bias may have led him astray. Zeroing on one poll, and surmising (incorrectly) other data is no way to advance such a broad argument. 1. Religious rates have been tested as much higher than he suggests. Using the "prayer" question is hardly a signifcant measurement of religiousness. 2. Youth are always less religious but when they grow up they return to a church in a similar percentage from generation to generation. 3. And most important, the poll shows 35% fall into the catagory this thread covers. What isn't said is how likely they are to vote, an obviously critical question in such polls. I would suggest that non-religious, mostly young voters vote at such a lower rate, these numbers become less meaningful.
I really do enjoy this site, btw. Keep up the (mostly) good work.
correc- fuck it
Mississippi has a democratic majority in its representatives, so there's that. Also, McCain would have to flip three democratic states AND get all of the splitters to become president. There's a chance of one or two democratic majorities flipping, but there's no way the party would let the election go after what happened in 2000. As such, were a tie to happen the party would calculate which state's majority could best survive any backlash that might result from selecting Obama and then pressure them to do so or face expulsion from the party and be labelled political enemies for the rest of their lives.
If it comes to a tie in the electoral college, Obama will be our next president.
"while hard core religious types are very hostile towards nonbelievers, most nonbelievers do not have that level of hostility towards the religious types"
As someone who feels he has experience with both communities, I believe it is the other way around. Have you been a regular attender of an evangelical church for years? The mentality of Rick Warren is very typical, and he cannot be described as "hostile". Indeed, if you want to find hostility, look for politically "liberal" leaning discussion boards, who go on at length about Dobson et al.
In the last anonymous comment above, when I say "which state" I mean of the three you list as likely to go McCain which are democratic majorities.
Whoops! Forgot all about that special election in Mississippi...
Regardless, there's a lot of easy targets for McCain. Tennessee, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Indiana are only Dem +1 in their delegations, so it would take just one Democrat voting for McCain to flip that state's vote.
If McCain secures both 50/50 delegations, and then flips three of the five states mentioned above, he's our next president. If he flips two, he forces a constitutional crisis.
Unlikely? Yes. Impossible? Not by a longshot.
That should be "flips three of the four states mentioned above"; Arkansas is 3-1 Dem, not 2-1 Dem.
Then again, could McCain snipe 2 Dems in Arkansas? Maybe an Arkansan could weigh in on that.
"... the two core constituencies of the Democratic parties, while both growing, also ultimately grow apart - liberal elites, and minorities."
??? They are coming together, not apart. Under Obama, these two groups have formed an unprecedented coalition. Face facts here: Obama would not be the nominee if he didn't have both groups. And there is no reason to think these groups will grow apart, either, so long as minorities keep being nominated. The minorities will vote for one of their own, and the liberal elite won't have any problem with voting for the same.
More generally, I'd dispute the contention that more educated means more left. I'd say more educated means more libertarian, which isn't the same thing. Look at the European Union. The establishment is for the Lisbon Treaty, with politicians, bureacrats, and business persons across the spectrum in favour, and the hard left and hard right against. In Ireland, for example, the No vote was "a toxic cocktail of anti-globalisers, neocons, the clergy and Trotskyists," as one observer noted.
The idea that the left is more educated is a lefty conceit. People like Krauthammer and Scalia are not ignorant idiots. What they are, however, is less *socially* conservative than the typical American.
"Godless" liberals kick ass.
I love framing this as a problem for McCain rather than as a problem for Obama. And I absolutely agree - the number of religious zealots will continue to dwindle because... well... quite frankly religious zealotry doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
michael:
Lastly, whether or not folks identify as atheist, 25% do identify as non-religious, i.e. not subscribing to an organized religion - so it is passing strange that 1/4 of the population does not exist as far as our politicians and media are concerned. It is the big lie of omission.
Quite frankly, I have little sympathy for this 25% non-religious segment of the population you speak of, simply because that segment is also one of the LEAST likely to get off its collective butt and VOTE.
If that 25% had voted in the 2000 and 2004 elections at the same or higher rate than the general population, we would have been left with a president who can't string a coherent sentence together.
The non-religious/atheist/agnostics want more influence? They'll have to work for it and participate in the system if that's the case.
er, my previous comment should read:
"we would NOT have been left with a president who can't string a coherent sentence together"
People get more spiritual/religious as they get older for the same reason there are no atheists in foxholes. Impending death concentrates the faculties on such matters. Even Darwin supposedly renounced evolution on his deathbed.
The sudden death of a celebrity like Russert wil make many liberal atheists age 50+ ponder their mortality and perhaps decide they believe in an afterlife after all.
Mike H in Cali:
1) Several studies of religious identity in the US have taken into account the historic trend you cite, and found: a) that it does not account for the dramatic increase in the "no religion" response in more recent surveys, and b) that, in fact, the assumption that people get more spiritual/religious as they get older is not accurate.
2) As an atheist military veteran, son of an atheist military veteran, I not only take personal exception at your false slur, I would also point out that, according to US military records, atheists serve in numbers higher than their proportion in the public, and, furthermore, that their percentage of officers is even higher. For example, more than 20% of Air Force officers are listed as having "no religion". This is true throughout the world (the Soviet soldiers who fought against Hitler and died in numbers far greater than Americans would no doubt have something to say about your false assertion).
3) Darwin most certainly did not renounce evolution on his deathbed - what is more, the Creationist who spread that false rumor has himself admitted it was made up.
4) Statistically, the trend is in precisely the opposite direction from that which you claim; "nonreligious" is the fastest growing major belief group in the US, as in the world at large.
It is sad that you feel such a powerful need to exclude a quarter of your fellow Americans from participation in the democratic process, that you must pretend that we are not sincere, or that it is a passing phase, or that we do not serve our country, endure taxation without representation, and often give our lives to defend your right to spread your misinformation.
Oh, and for the other bit of misinformation posted earlier, in fact, atheists in the US vote at higher percentages than the average voter.
I, for one, want to thank fivethirtyeight for drawing attention to the significance of a major segment of the voting population that has been utterly disrespected by virtually every candidate for the past one hundred years - a segment that is disproportionately situated in key battleground states, where they can make a significant difference in the outcome.
I happen to have data from 2000, in response to an earlier question, of polling results relevant to this discussion. As soon as I can find the file in my archives, I will post that info here.
the nonreligious don't have kids, and that is why they are not politically catered to.
evangelicals are having 4 kids a family. 'not religious' folks are saying 'we can't have a kid in this market'. if you aren't breeding the next generation of voters, you should not be surprised at your lack of political representation.
the nonreligious don't have kids, and that is why they are not politically catered to.
evangelicals are having 4 kids a family. 'not religious' folks are saying 'we can't have a kid in this market'. if you aren't breeding the next generation of voters, you should not be surprised at your lack of political representation.
Man, that is just seven kinds of stupid. Were that the case, don't you think there would be a lot higher percentage of religious folks, given their successful eugenics program and all? I don't know if you have any kids, but my personal experience, and one that has been noted in books,film, poems and music from Rage Against The Machine to The Bible, is that if you expect your progeny to share your views by default, you will be sorely disappointed.
Rationalist,
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you for your service to our country, and thank you for standing up and saying enough.
spike, it's not a eugenics program, it's a numbers game. if you have more kids, odds are better that AT LEAST one will share your views. if you have fewer kids, your odds are worse. religious people have more children, so it's less risky for them if 80 percent of those children don't share their views, because atheists are far less likely to have large families, or even to have children at all.
plus, this is a standard critique thrown out by non-religious people who expect to not have children and still have their views propagated, which is a more appalling arrogance entirely than hoping a couple of or all of your four kids will share your religious views.
if the 'propagating views without having kids' views of so many atheists worked so well, politicians wouldn't be sitting there feeling they can't publically declare atheist views and get elected. because those views would be societally acceptable and have been integrated into social norms.
having more than two kids is still the best way to ensure at least some of your views end up on a ballot in the long term. and that you still have ballots (or don't, if you are along those lines).
Goodness, Marie--so much vitriol, so little empirical support. (And a hat tip to Rationalist, a few of whose points I'm echoing below.)
religious people have more children, so it's less risky for them if 80 percent of those children don't share their views.
That's pretty funny: if my religious neighbor has five children, and we infidels deconvert four of them, that's a +3 net gain for irreligion; we'll take it! (And it doesn't require us to do any of that costly reproducin'.) So much for "less risky" for religion.
In fact, that scenario is pretty close to the reality we're seeing (except that the 4:1 ratio is, I'm afraid, overly optimistic): the burgeoning numbers of atheists and related nonbelievers on the planet mainly consist of converts from traditional religions--scads of Christian (and Muslim and Hindu and theistic-Jewish) parents are having offspring who end up abandoning The Faith for secular worldviews.
As sociologists Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman show in their article "Why the Gods Are Not Winning," irreligion is the only sector of the world "belief market" that is currently growing in "market share" due to conversion rather than copulation. (Islam is the only other major group that's growing at all, and that's only because they're doing a more effective job of playing your reproduce-and-indoctrinate game than any other group is.)
In the above-linked article, Paul and Zuckerman quote the evangelical World Christian Encyclopedia bemoaning the scary progress that secularism has made:
"The number of nonreligionists…. throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900, to 697 million in 1970, and on to 918 million in AD 2000…. Equally startling has been the meteoritic growth of secularism…. Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world's religions: agnosticism…. and atheism…. From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, these systems…. are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians."
So the actual evidence shows that we secularists are doing just fine (notwithstanding our low birth rates), thanks. Paul and Zuckerman explain that the real factors behind the spread of irreligion are (1) improved education and (2) strong economic safety nets (which make folks less prone to destitution if they lose a job, get sick, or get injured). The sociological evidence is fairly clear: without ignorance and fear, religion gradually dies.
this is a standard critique thrown out by non-religious people who expect to not have children and still have their views propagated, which is a more appalling arrogance entirely than hoping a couple of or all of your four kids will share your religious views.
On the contrary: it is not the slightest bit arrogant to be confident in one's reasoned conclusions about the world, and to expect that well educated and socially secure populations of the (not very distant) future will come to realize what we have. Our product is measurably winning in the marketplace of ideas, and we can be reasonably confident it will continue to win.
if the 'propagating views without having kids' views of so many atheists worked so well, politicians wouldn't be sitting there feeling they can't publically declare atheist views and get elected.
That's a bit naive. As has been well established above, societal prejudice against atheists is strong and abiding. That won't go away overnight any more than superstition will. But give us two generations, or perhaps three; we'll get there.
Have you taken a look at secular Europe? That's where we're headed. And given the quality of life that people in the most secular parts of Europe enjoy, that's a very happy prospect.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment