|
|
 |
|
 |
Old Town Alexandria, Northern Virginia. Jogging through this gorgeous, historic town the first Saturday after Tue., Nov. 4, which elected the most leftist presidential candidate in American history, it isn't difficult to see how the typically Republican state of Virginia went Democrat in 2008. The sheer volume of "Obama-Biden" signs in the windows of BMWs and million-dollar townhouses is stunning, surpassed only by dogs on leashes--and in direct contrast to the conspicuous lack of children. Likewise, the bumper stickers on Lexuses on cobblestone streets offer a tutorial on the force of liberal migration to Northern Virginia. They shout out a visceral hatred of George W. Bush--plus much more. As I ventured closer to the DC border, one particular bumper sticker caught my eye: "I'm Pagan and I Vote." That, too, is telling -- and worthy of careful consideration, especially given its failure to register among the press. Once again, in this presidential election, non-religious Americans came out in large numbers, and again cast ballots overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee. As these citizens become more bold and vocal -- evidenced by the spate of bestselling atheistic books in the last few years -- they can no longer be ignored. Before considering the data, I want to be very clear: Obviously, I'm not saying that if you voted for Barack Obama, you're an atheist. Quite the contrary, Obama won the presidency because so many believers voted for him. According to CNN exit polls, 45 percent of Protestants and 53 percent of Catholics voted for Obama, as did 78 percent of Jews. Please, no angry emails. What I'm saying is that the vast majority of self-described non-religious voting Americans went for Obama, and they were decisive. CNN exit polls found that 76 percent of those who answered "none" when asked about religious affiliation cast ballots for Obama. They comprised 12 percent of voters. That equates to an Obama grab of at least 11 million (generally) non-religious voters--a number notably larger than Obama's overall popular-vote victory of roughly eight million. That's a huge advantage for the Democratic nominee, one that gets more powerful every four years. The contrast is clear when broken down among church attendance. Those who attend church services "once a week" voted for McCain by 55 to 43 percent, while those who attend "a few times a year" went for Obama 59 to 39 percent, and those who "never" go to church voted Obama 67 to 30 percent. The numbers are consistent among denominations: John McCain actually won Catholics who attend Mass weekly (50 to 49 percent), but was trounced by Catholics who don't attend weekly (58 to 40 percent). McCain's largest margin was white evangelical/born-again Christians, which he swept 74 to 24 percent. Yet, even then, that margin was not as wide as those with no religious affiliation who went for Obama. What's most significant is that this is nothing new. It is a recent trend gravitating to an increasingly secular Democratic Party.
Consider the 2004 presidential race: According to CNN exit polling, those who attend church more than once per week went for George W. Bush by 63 to 35 percent, or by 11.6 million to 6.4 million votes, a difference of 5.2 million votes; those who said they never attend church went for John Kerry by 64 to 34 percent, or by 11.1 million to 5.9 million votes, also a difference of 5.2 million votes. This was much like the 2000 vote, when those who attended church more than weekly went for Bush by 63 to 36 percent, whereas Vice President Al Gore bagged those who never attended by 61 to 32 percent. In other words, the religious "values voters" often credited for winning the day for George W. Bush in 2004 and 2000 were effectively countered by non- or less-religious Americans who tried to win the day for John Kerry and Al Gore. Look at how the 2004 vote broke down in the most important states for Democrats: In California, one in four voters said they never attend church, and they went for Kerry 63 to 34 percent. In New York, the 12 percent of voters who claimed no religion at all voted for Kerry by 78 to 19 percent. Atheists and agnostics are prominent in the two bluest states most important to Democratic presidential nominees. It is quite telling that liberal journalists are constantly wringing their hands over the evangelical vote, but could care less about the rise of an atheist vote. Whereas evangelicals scare them to death--and are highlighted as a dangerous force--atheists are of no concern whatsoever. Non-believers have forged a potent voting bloc, probably unprecedented in American history. And while a lot of Republicans push to make the GOP an even bigger "tent," count me as one who prefers to cede this vote to the Democrats. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperPerennial, 2007) and The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007).
Share this article:
|
|
|
|
|
I spent 25 years as the Church Lady--Rhema, Grace, Victory--I was a devoted, committed part of all that, with only one desire--to please god. Then I grew a brain. I am a 47 year old woman. And a Republican. And a pagan. And I vote. I'm tired of my party being highjacked by people such as this author. In his eyes, the Republican party is only for people like himself, who check every single box on the conservative litmus exam. People like myself, who check some boxes, but not others, are not welcome. Since I would even be less welcome in the Democratic party, the only thing I can do is to urge my fellow centrist republicans, especially women, to not leave the party in frustration, but work to take it back. It is my mission to take my party back from the religious fundamentalist extremists who have highjacked it. Make no mistake--these are the people who would stone an adulteress and kill a witch, as the Bible urges, if they thought they could possibly get away with it, but our society's laws prohibit it, and thus they are restrained.Interestingly, they also accurately perceive fundamentalist Islam as dangerous and violent, but have no idea that when they view Al Quaida, they are looking in a mirror at their own souls. And these people are in charge of my party. I am a republican because I agree with free market capitalism, with fiscal responsibility, with the right to bear arms, and with limited government, but on social issues, I disagree with Christians on almost every issue. This man's republican party is no place for any thinking woman, but I refuse to be chased out, and choose instead to work to get rid of the religious dictators who have taken it over. Anyone want to join me?
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
BubbaMan, if someone does not accept the concept of god(s) as factual, how is it offensive to call that person an atheist? The word isn't slanderous or insulting. If you are offended by someone's beliefs, it's not that person's place to apologize. I'm certainly not offended by your identification as a pagan voter, though Dr. Kengor obviously would be.
If someone DOES tell you that you must adhere to a particular religious doctrine (or abandon another), then yes, that would be offensive. But as near as I can tell, nobody has done that. Or do you think that by simply declaring one's atheism is a itself a form of religious intolerance or discrimination? (Note that nobody has done that either. Why would you say I live in a "spiritually dead universe"? That's a fairly harsh accusation.)
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
I take great exception to the idea that 'pagan' = 'non-religious'
And I most certainly can and *DO* take exception to being labeled an atheist. If Mr. Dan from Midtown believes he lives in a spiritually dead universe, that's his look out, but I do object to being told that I must.
As it turns out, I am also a Pagan and I also vote.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
A number of things:
The author describes Obama as "the most leftist presidential candidate in American history". My, but the author sure is deluded about that... I mean, even if you think Obama is leftist, ha, the author failed when he said "candidate" (instead of, say, "major-party nominee"); Nader anyone? He also uses "in American history" again near the end; it's quite hyperbolic, of course.
The author mentions "visceral hatred" of Bush; what this means, literally, is "hatred" that is "not intellectual" [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/visceral], or in another word, 'irrational'. 'Reasonable' people, the author implies, support George W. Bush.
And the author makes a total failure when he says this:
"... one particular bumper sticker caught my eye: 'I'm Pagan and I Vote.'
"That, too, is telling ... Once again, in this presidential election, non-religious Americans came out in large numbers ..."
Which would make sense, except for the fact that it doesn't. You see, "Pagan" is a term that describes any number of creeds (that are not the major religions: the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, Buddhism), and does not at all equate with "non-religious".
And, ohmigosh, the author equates churchgoing frequency with religiosity -- obviously, it's entirely possible to be religious and not attend church often or even at all; and it's certainly possible to be non-religious but attend church anyway. And that without mention the author's apparent belief that CNN's exit polls are the be-all and end-all of the vote breakdowns (rather than, say, approximations based on randomly-chosen samples which should be representative), particularly where he says "McCain actually won Catholics who attend Mass weekly (50 to 49 percent)"; the author is being lazy; he could at least have said, "among exit poll respondents ..." (which would have been undeniably correct), but exit polls are approximations. To illustrate, they also said that 46 percent of this year's voters voted for Bush in 2004, and 37 percent for Kerry, and 4 percent for someone else [http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh111308.shtml]; those numbers are obviously extremely difficult to reconcile with the actual previous presidential election numbers -- so, as Somerby puts it, the author appears to "treat exit poll data as they were handed to Moses by God", which is, well, not warranted.
The author says, obviously ironically, "atheists are of no concern whatsoever," which of course means the author is actually saying that 'atheists are of very much concern'. The question here is: "why are atheists of such concern?" Are they going to force everyone to disbelieve in deities? Burn down churches? I know, it really doesn't make much sense.
Overall, Mr. Kengor's logic quite fails, and relies far more on cultural resentment than fact. Smarter Republicans, please.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
What some Republicans know, but have so far been unable to get into the heads of the Religious Right (RR) is that many of the social outcomes the RR seek can be pursued in a non-religious way. It is very easy to find a barrage of statistics listing the number of Americans killed every year (far more than the Vietnam war), the number of Americans infected with a lifelong disease, the poverty, the crime, the decline in education, etc. caused by hedonism, irresponsible sex (what's on your TV tonight?), and the failure of society to understand the importance of teaching children how to strengthen society (even pagan societies understood that). None of these things have any inherent connection to religion. But the RR have not been able to figure this out yet.
The RR need to understand that it is unlikely The Almighty is going to come from on high to hand them political victory (unless you're a millenialist, but that's another discussion). They are going to have to win at politics on their own. The RR must be willing loosen their (political) death grip on some religious issues -- or at least become a heck of a lot more subtle about them -- so they can gain ground on other social issues. You can't play politics without getting a little dirt on you. Politics ain't beanbag (Finley Peter Dunne). It might be an honorable act and make for a good movie to stick to one's principles and fall on one's political sword rather than comprise oneself, but all that gets you is politically dead. The movie ends, the credits roll, and they drag your political corpse off the set.
Considering the number of states that have passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly heterosexual, I think it is reasonable to say that if the RR could be taught to choose their issues wisely and keep a lid on the sermonizing, they could kick some major political butt.
This whole discussion is somewhat moot. The assumption that the Republicans lost because of religion is wrong. They lost because they starting running the government like old guard Democrats. The current crop of Democrats would do well to keep that in mind. But they probably won't. Instead, the public will probably find that the "change" they got is The Real McCoy old guard Democrat government.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
"Before considering the data, I want to be very clear: Obviously, I'm not saying that if you voted for Barack Obama, you're an atheist. Please, no angry emails."
Um, being labeled an atheist is not something anyone should take offense to. Whether or not non-religious voters swayed the election in Obama's favor is certainly of interest, however, the tone of this article seems to force that narrow-minded impression that "atheist" and "non-religious" are negative labels, insults--similar to the use of the words "liberal" or "progressive" as attempts at slander.
The final sentence is quite telling of the author's negative attitude (superiority over? hatred for? fear of?) towards non-religious citizens: "...count me as one who prefers to cede this vote to the Democrats", as if to say "well, us Republicans don't want their kind polluting our ranks anyhow!"
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Mail Article
Print Article
Add to favorites