The Religious Landscape is Undergoing Massive Change. It Could Decide the 2024 Election.

[Massdriver]

Quote

 

But that’s not to say that the Republicans don’t have reasons for hope in the Religion Census.

 

There are 67 counties in Florida — and religious adherents grew in forty-nine of them. One of the true shocks on election night 2020 was just how poorly Biden did in Miami-Dade, which Clinton won in a landslide in 2016. Just four years after Clinton beat Trump by nearly 30 percentage points, Biden ran only seven points better than Trump. The Religion Census offers an insight into why that happened. In 2010, about 40 percent of residents of Miami-Dade County were connected to a religious group. In 2020, that was 52 percent.

 

Miami-Dade is something of an outlier. There are 16 counties in the United States with populations of at least two million residents. Eleven of them were less religious in 2020 than they were a decade earlier. Only one saw religion grow by at least 10 percent — Miami-Dade. The possibility of the Democrats gaining ground in Florida in the 2024 election seems like a pipe dream when considering how full houses of worship are around Miami now, compared to just a decade ago.

 

The other shift in American religion that may be working against the Democrats is in the state of Texas. While pundits have long believed that Texas would turn blue in the next decade — the Religion Census throws cold water on such a conjecture.

 

In many counties that are close to the border with Mexico, religion saw big gains between 2010 and 2020. The one that grabbed national headlines in 2020 was heavily Hispanic Zapata County. Clinton took it by 44 points in 2016, while Biden only bested Trump by 11 points in 2020. The Religion Census indicates that the share of Zapata County that was part of a congregation was 31 percent in 2010. Just 10 years later, it had risen to 65 percent — the rate of religious adherents doubled in less than a decade. Other border counties like Maverick and Starr saw religiosity more than double by 2020, as well. Nearly 90 percent of residents of Starr County voted for Obama in 2012. Biden only managed 52 percent in 2020.

 

It goes without saying that the dramatic rise in religion in many counties in Florida and Texas is deeply intertwined with the increasing number of Hispanic immigrants in these parts of the country. The Democrats showed real weakness with the Hispanic vote in the last several election cycles, especially in areas where religion has tremendous influence. Survey data indicates that recent immigrants to the United States report very high levels of religious attendance and prayer frequency, which predisposes this group to cultural conservatism.

 

The Religious Landscape is Undergoing Massive Change. It Could Decide the 2024 Election. - POLITICO

WWW.POLITICO.COM

---

The new decennial Religion Census offers cause for hope — and alarm — for both parties.

 

Texas will be solid red under Dan Patrick for at least another 10 years. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Nothing even remotely surprising here at all.

 

The increase in Latin populations was inevitably going to result in a more conservative electorate in areas where they predominate.

[BloodyHell]

1 hour ago, Massdriver said:

The Religious Landscape is Undergoing Massive Change. It Could Decide the 2024 Election. - POLITICO

WWW.POLITICO.COM

---

The new decennial Religion Census offers cause for hope — and alarm — for both parties.

 

Texas will be solid red under Dan Patrick for at least another 10 years. 

Mentioning texas being red is like saying beetlejuice 3 times 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Nothing even remotely surprising here at all.

 

The increase in Latin populations was inevitably going to result in a more conservative electorate in areas where they predominate.

The narrative that immigration from devout Roman Catholic countries was suddenly going to result in a more socially progressive voter base never quite rang true for me.

[CitizenVectron]

It's really weird seeing Canada and the US take such different tacks when it comes to religious immigrants. In both cases, you had the natural allies of religious immigrants (social conservatives) go hard on racism against those immigrants over the past decade. In Canada, this hurt the conservative parties, and religious immigrants have mostly stuck to the progressive parties as they apparently value their own cultural identity/race protection over their socially religious beliefs. But in the US, you have a very large group of religious immigrants (Latin American, specifically) vote against the protection of their race/cultural rights, and for their religious social beliefs. It's strange how the priorities were different despite the relative similarity of the two countries in the grand scheme of things.

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

The narrative that immigration from devout Roman Catholic countries was suddenly going to result in a more socially progressive voter base never quite rang true for me.

 

Yeah, but that's a right-wing fear, not a liberal fear. 97% of Puerto Rico identifies as Christian. Of they were a state they would easily and instantly become the most Christian and religious state in the country. However, it's Republicans that don't want the island to become a state for fear of how their rhetoric might push the very religiously conservative population to vote Democratic.

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

The narrative that immigration from devout Roman Catholic countries was suddenly going to result in a more socially progressive voter base never quite rang true for me.

 

That was just dumb libs thinking everything is San Francisco and Manhattan 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

Yeah, but that's a right-wing fear, not a liberal fear. 97% of Puerto Rico identifies as Christian. Of they were a state they would easily and instantly become the most Christian and religious state in the country. However, it's Republicans that don't want the island to become a state for fear of how their rhetoric might push the very religiously conservative population to vote Democratic.

No doubt -- white-replacement conspiracy theories are part of it.  But I think I've heard it enough from left-wing folks to believe that this thinking is more widespread than that. 

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

No doubt -- white-replacement conspiracy theories are part of it.  But I think I've heard it enough from left-wing folks to believe that this thinking is more widespread than that. 

 

There is definitely some underestimation of how religious folks from the Caribbean are here. I mean, there, IS good reason to think Puerto Rico would wield two Democratic senators, but it's not a given. Their current governor may be aligned with Democrats but their current not-state rep is aligned with Republicans.

[AbsolutSurgen]

7 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

There is definitely some underestimation of how religious folks from the Caribbean going on here. I mean, there's good reason to think Puerto Rico would wild wield two Democratic senators, but it's not a given. They're current governor may be aligned with Democrats but they're current not-state rep is aligned with Republicans.

A quick google search tells me the 2-term Resident Comissioner of Puerto Rico is affiliated with the Republican Party -- you might be on to something.

[Ghost_MH]

8 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

A quick google search tells me the 2-term Resident Comissioner of Puerto Rico is affiliated with the Republican Party -- you might be on to something.

 

Republicans are just too busy courting the white nationalist vote to open their eyes. That is in spite of their very own research into their losses against Obama saying as much. It's hard to open the tent for brown and black people when your biggest donors don't really like brown and black people. You think Republicans in Congress don't know the rep from Puerto Rico is a registered Republican? Of course they do. They know that she has the best shot at winning one of the two Senator seats in PR, of anyone available.

 

PR isn't split Republican/Democratic. They're split independence/statehood and there are liberal and conservative members on both sides of the two parties.

[Greatoneshere]

Any minority on this board can name probably a million examples of how conservative (and often racist!) minorities are amongst their own. And how many self-hating minorities there are - plenty prefer to value their religious beliefs being upheld from their home country than the social progressivism that would protect them and their families from the prevalent racism amongst whites in the United States and other systemic and institutional problems. It's baffling but when you remember how ridiculous religion is it's not so hard to fathom. 

[Fizzzzle]

It's okay to be religious. Don't define yourself by it.

 

In fact, don't define yourself by any singular thing. It's like when you see a dating profile that's like GOD. GUNS. DORITOS.

 

Once you divorce yourself from the idea that a singular belief or hobby you have defines who you are, you can enjoy life a lot more.

[Ghost_MH]

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

Any minority on this board can name probably a million examples of how conservative (and often racist!) minorities are amongst their own. And how many self-hating minorities there are - plenty prefer to value their religious beliefs being upheld from their home country than the social progressivism that would protect them and their families from the prevalent racism amongst whites in the United States and other systemic and institutional problems. It's baffling but when you remember how ridiculous religion is it's not so hard to fathom. 

 

You also have to assume that they don't believe the racism and institutional problems will go away. It's not like colorism isn't still a problem within the former European colonies, anyway. May as well pull for the common religion.

[AbsolutSurgen]

3 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

It's okay to be religious. Don't define yourself by it.

 

In fact, don't define yourself by any singular thing. It's like when you see a dating profile that's like GOD. GUNS. DORITOS.

 

Once you divorce yourself from the idea that a singular belief or hobby you have defines who you are, you can enjoy life a lot more.

It’s almost like we are all individuals. And the differences are what make us each special. 

[Greatoneshere]

5 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

You also have to assume that they don't believe the racism and institutional printing will go away. It's not like colorism isn't still a problem within the former European colonies, anyway. May as well pull for the common religion.

 

Completely true, to the point it's sad. Having discussions with such people is frustrating because they believe so much in the tiered system that exists (sometimes understandably so) that they can't even see voting differently as a group can change things. Additionally, you get so many Republican right wing talking point brain washing that never makes any sense, like when rich minorities talk about how Republicans are better because they cut their taxes (again, ignoring all the racism and social implications of voting Republican) when none of these "rich" minorities were making nearly enough to really benefit from such tax cuts, it was just continued false beliefs  being perpetuated to cover for their desire for conservative and religious social values. Like, dude, you're not making millions, Trump's tax cuts aren't helping you. But they truly believe it does at the cost of any social (and maybe economic) progressivism. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

I don’t think white people should be telling black people how to vote. They’re smart enough to figure it out for themselves. 

[Fizzzzle]

14 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

It’s almost like we are all individuals. And the differences are what make us each special. 

My question is why is it so important to feel special? It's okay to be a Baptist, that's chill, it's only when you start feeling like that makes you better than people who aren't Baptists that we have problems.

 

It's okay to like metal music. I certainly do. It's only when you start thinking anyone who doesn't listen to Opeth is a basic bitch that we have a problem.

 

It's okay to like Taylor Swift, but nevermind, not finishing that one I don't want to be murdered or doxed

 

Your beliefs and your hobbies make you unique, but they don't make you special.

 

 

[Fizzzzle]

And yes, I'm comparing someone's religious beliefs to being a fan of Taylor Swift. I don't see that much difference. If you've ever met Swiftie you'd understand.

 

It's an arbitrary thing that someone has decided defines their entire personality. When you do that, it becomes easy to see everyone else as an 'other'

[AbsolutSurgen]

According to the thesaurus, unique and special are synonyms. I meant it in the meaning “different from the usual”, rather than “exceptional”. 

[Comet]

16 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

Any minority on this board can name probably a million examples of how conservative (and often racist!) minorities are amongst their own. And how many self-hating minorities there are - plenty prefer to value their religious beliefs being upheld from their home country than the social progressivism that would protect them and their families from the prevalent racism amongst whites in the United States and other systemic and institutional problems. It's baffling but when you remember how ridiculous religion is it's not so hard to fathom. 

The phrase crabs in a bucket is used in this context so much for a reason. 

[Ghost_MH]

1 hour ago, Comet said:

The phrase crabs in a bucket is used in this context so much for a reason. 

 

 

I've got nothing else to add. You just reminded me of a great song.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

This is part of the Democrats’ struggles with Hispanics that I posted about earlier.  I think it might continue to marginalize them if they don’t move closer to the where these voters are on some key social issues.

 

I would like for there to be another way, but given the demographic reality I don’t know what that way is—although I’m always open to new ideas. Centrism is cloying and full of annoying compromises, but historically it’s been necessary in the US to blunt the momentum of shifts to the right by the electorate.

 

History has a leftward direction, IMO,  but we forget that it’s dialectical.  And America in aggregate has always been center-right-ish.  We’ve just gone through a period where the left has gained major victories for certain marginalized groups.  Gays and lesbians in particular are more accepted in mainstream society than anyone would have thought possible 20 years ago.  But progressives had to navigate their way through Bush Jr.’s right-wing evangelical revivalism, and make annoy compromises, to get there.  We might have to do something similar again.

 

On that note, you know what would be nice to see?  A properly organized left-wing evangelical revivalist movement.  There’s space for it—Jesus was not a right-wing dude.  He was killed by the Pharisees for spouting off communist shit like “forgive people their debts, as we forgive those who are indebted to us.”   Not exactly an idea right-wing banking oligarchs wanted to see gaining popularity amongst the common people, much less their bond-slaves, much less from some brown-skinned hippy from Nazareth.

[Greatoneshere]

4 hours ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

On that note, you know what would be nice to see?  A properly organized left-wing evangelical revivalist movement.  There’s space for it—Jesus was not a right-wing dude.  He was killed by the Pharisees for spouting off communist shit like “forgive people their debts, as we forgive those who are indebted to us.”   Not exactly an idea right-wing banking oligarchs wanted to see gaining popularity amongst the common people, much less their bond-slaves, much less from some brown-skinned hippy from Nazareth.

 

This always comes to my mind when I think of right-wingers and what they think of Jesus vs. what was likely the case.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I really have issues with the left's tendency to ascribe a modern political context to Christ's teachings as it's ahistorical, irrelevant, and generally won't serve the objectives of a left-wing ideology.

 

Nothing Christ said even remotely supports an overall leftist reading of his beliefs save from a few highly-selective examples.

 

Hell, I could easily make the argument that Christ espoused a more or less "libertarian" outlook as he never insinuated that "the State" should practice his moral outlook but rather emphasized the actions of the individual.  In fact, I really do take issue with the notion that Christ was any type of "revolutionary" as his own "Render unto Caesar" quote genuinely appears to be an affirmation of obedience to temporal authority.

 

Besides, he was only tangenitally concerned with the affairs of this world and directed his teachings towards preparing his followers for the world to come.

 

In summary, resist the temptation to fit Christ's words into a leftist connotation because it really just doesn't work.

[Bacon]

I have a very bad /r/atheism-like opinion on religion.

[TwinIon]

9 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I really have issues with the left's tendency to ascribe a modern political context to Christ's teachings as it's ahistorical, irrelevant, and generally poor intellectual reasoning.

 

Nothing Christ said even remotely supports a generally leftist reading of his ideology save from a few highly-selective examples.

 

Hell, I could easily make the argument that Christ espoused a more or less "libertarian" outlook as he never insinuated that "the State" should practice his moral outlook but rather emphasized the actions of the individual.

 

Besides, he was only tangenitally concerned with the affairs of this world and directed his teachings towards preparing his followers for the world to come.

 

In summary, resist the temptation to fit Christ's words into a leftist connotation because it really just doesn't work.

I don't really disagree with the idea that Christ's teaching don't line up well with modern politics on the left, but I'd argue that the right is so much worse about this.

 

Not only do I think his politics line up worse against modern conservative politics, but they're the ones that are constantly bringing up "Christian values" to justify their stances on issues.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

8 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

I don't really disagree with the idea that Christ's teaching don't line up well with modern politics on the left, but I'd argue that the right is so much worse about this.

 

Not only do I think his politics line up worse against modern conservative politics, but they're the ones that are constantly bringing up "Christian values" to justify their stances on issues.

 

 

That would entirely depend on whether Christ really did mean that in no way did he intend that his existence abrogate the necessity of following the Mosaic law.

 

If that is what he meant, then there is very little conflict with modern conservative politics.

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I really have issues with the left's tendency to ascribe a modern political context to Christ's teachings as it's ahistorical, irrelevant, and generally won't serve the objectives of a left-wing ideology.

 

Nothing Christ said even remotely supports an overall leftist reading of his beliefs save from a few highly-selective examples.

 

Hell, I could easily make the argument that Christ espoused a more or less "libertarian" outlook as he never insinuated that "the State" should practice his moral outlook but rather emphasized the actions of the individual.  In fact, I really do take issue with the notion that Christ was any type of "revolutionary" as his own "Render unto Caesar" quote genuinely appears to be an affirmation of obedience to temporal authority.

 

Besides, he was only tangenitally concerned with the affairs of this world and directed his teachings towards preparing his followers for the world to come.

 

In summary, resist the temptation to fit Christ's words into a leftist connotation because it really just doesn't work.

 

I would agree with you - any explicit connection to the left is only to shift the Overton window from the right's reflexive interpretation of Jesus Christ rather than saying Jesus was some left wing progressive God back in ancient times, if that makes sense. It depends on which teachings and things he espoused one wants to take to heart - religion is selective by nature. The hope is we should take the great positive progressive examples (if there are any) and expand on those rather than focus on the clearly regressive values that were possibly espoused.

 

It's the same as saying "believe all women". No one is saying you should literally believe every single case of every single woman. What it's meant to counter is the reflexive response of a lot of people (mostly men) when they go: "but not all men" or "but also women lie" because that's the issue people are currently facing up against. Saying Jesus Christ was possibly brown, possibly fine with sex workers, happy to heal the sick for free, etc. isn't to suggest this is some true interpretation of him as he's described in the Bible, but to counter cultural and societal reflexivity to the negative opposite that seems to be the majority held view of Jesus' moral values.

 

How does one try convincing religious peoples' minds? One of the first ways is to convince them that they've simply misinterpreted their religion rather than getting into the nitty gritty. Basic, strong, powerful counter-examples or statements that go against their strongly held beliefs is a lot more effective than simply telling them to give up religion or educate them to an academic level where we can get into the nitty gritty of theology. @Signifyin(g)Monkey's suggestion that there's a place for left wing evangelicalism is a good one, and I was simply reinforcing with my image post that there's definitely a path to get there, an interpretation of Jesus to get there which would be helpful, true or not. I mean, all religion is bullshit, I'm just trying to work on their playing field (meaning religious people).  

[Fizzzzle]

I agree with @TwinIon that it's not really so much about lefties claiming Jesus as their own, so much as it is about people on the right constantly espousing "christian values" when it's like... have you ever read the New Testament? Nothing about anything that you're saying is in there. People on the right use religion as a cloak for racism, sexism, bigotry, and a bunch of other -isms, as they have for thousands of years.

 

MLK was devoutly religious (don't tell his wife), and also an absolute lefty commie pinko. If you believe that the FBI killed him, it wasn't until after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had already passed. They weren't worried about his speeches and marches on black equality. It was only when he went haaaaarrrd on the commie pinko shit that they truly went after him. Allegedly. Assuming you think they killed him. Which I do. In my opinion.

 

There has been a concerted effort over the last 50 years to both associate right-wing Capitalist values with being religious (as ridiculous as that is) and to associate anything on the left as being inherently irreligious. The idea of someone being both religious AND on the left is incompatible in most peoples' minds. I think that effort was a direct consequence of people like MLK and Malcolm X.

[marioandsonic]

1 hour ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

 

That would entirely depend on whether Christ really did mean that in no way did he intend that his existence abrogate the necessity of following the Mosaic law.

 

If that is what he meant, then there is very little conflict with modern conservative politics.

 

That was always one of the big Christian debates.  Did Jesus overthrow the Mosiac law, or was he a continuation of it?

[GeneticBlueprint]

It's not so much lining up ideologically 1:1, more that "what's the best way to achieve this example that Jesus Christ demonstrated when given the two options in the United States?" i.e. Best way to help the poor, something Christ specifically commands his disciples to do. There's the general left leaning option of wanting to expand the welfare state to guarantee some basic level of housing, food security, etc.; or there's the general right leaning option of relying on the kindness of individuals.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, marioandsonic said:

 

That was always one of the big Christian debates.  Did Jesus overthrow the Mosiac law, or was he a continuation of it?

 

Christ claimed that he was the "fulfillment" of the Mosaic law which theoretically meant that it was no longer necessary to obey the law in order to attain salvation.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

48 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

It's not so much lining up ideologically 1:1, more that "what's the best way to achieve this example that Jesus Christ demonstrated when given the two options in the United States?" i.e. Best way to help the poor, something Christ specifically commands his disciples to do. There's the general left leaning option of wanting to expand the welfare state to guarantee some basic level of housing, food security, etc.; or there's the general right leaning option of relying on the kindness of individuals.

 

My position is that if Christ genuinely wanted the "left-leaning option" to be the default, then he would've explicitly instructed his followers to ensure that the overall societal structure reflected this desire.  However, because he was infinitely more concerned with the spiritual rather than the temporal, this wasn't priority for him in the least and therefore he essentially left it up to the individual.

[Fizzzzle]

38 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

My position is that if Christ genuinely wanted the "left-leaning option" to be the default, then he would've explicitly instructed his followers to ensure that the overall societal structure reflected this desire.  However, because he was infinitely more concerned with the spiritual rather than the temporal, this wasn't priority for him in the least and therefore he essentially left it up to the individual.

And thus spawning thousands of years of people who will happily fuck up this world as long as it means someone told them they'll get to live in Heaven.

 

Sorry, this is another tangent, I know I'm on one today - Why do people want to go to heaven? If you stop to think about it for longer than a second, it's terrifying. The only thing scarier than death is eternity.

 

And before you say "well eternity in Heaven is better than eternity in Hell," it's debated whether the Christian bible even references our view of Hell at all. Most of what we think of as Hell comes from Dante, not the Bible. In some interpretations, going to hell might simply mean that your soul is destroyed. There is no fire and brimstone, just nothingness. IE the punishment of being bad is simply that you don't get to go to paradise.