Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Stargazer

Obama Approval Rating -- By Religion

Recommended Posts

I am NOT trying to provoke a political discussion! As much as I would love to have one here. We all pretty much know who is left and who is right among the USA posters, so let's leave it as read, OK?  Let's try to keep the topic open without the Mods closing it!

Gallup does a Presidential approval poll on a continuous basis, and guess who approves the most of his job performance at this time, and who least approves!

Cutting to the chase, Muslims approve most, and Mormons approve least!

Here's the link:

Gallup Poll of Presidential Job Approval, Jan to Jun 2014.

 

The whole point of my posting this is not to discuss the President's job approval, or who likes it and who doesn't, but to point up the interesting fact that Gallup has separated the LDS out from the rest of the Christians!  

 

And that is what I want to see discussed: that singling out, NOT politics.  GRRRR.  If you can't keep the politics out of your post, please don't post.

 

Let 'er rip.

 

Share this post


Link to post

They broke Jews; I thought they broke out Evangelicals in the Pew research.  I must be wrong.

 

It is strange that a small subset like the Latter-day Saint people are broken out.  Hmm, odd isn't it.  I cannot believe that we are exactly a political force in the nation.  It is true that we are punching well above our weight class at this time, but it is a blip in the things and soon we will not have anyone in senior positions and things continue to go through the cycle. 

 

Do JWs vote?

Share this post


Link to post

It does not bother me at all that Mormons were placed in their own group here. I would guess it was done to show how significantly opposite they are in their approval of Obama from Muslims who decisively support him the most.

Share this post


Link to post

I do not know anyone in our little parish of about 300 souls who voted for President Obama and I know everybody. Just as one distinguishes Mormons from other Christians, I would be interested in distinguishing practicing Catholics from non-practicing. I would be very confident that there is not one voter in my chapel and less than 1% of Catholics who assist exclusively at the Traditional Mass who would approve of our current administration. The breakdown would show that those Catholics who don't go to Mass at all would approve of Obama a lot, and those who prefer the New Mass are probably about split as the poll shows. I can't prove it, and I won't argue about it, but I know it.

Share this post


Link to post

3DOP, that does not surprise me, but I think it would be logistically very difficult to have a study of all religious denominations and their respective subgroups beyond gender. 

 

to digress into a bit of a rant, then ignore without commenting for I fear it is too political.

 

I have such a jaded perception of our citizenry and their interest in really voting for a qualified leader rather than a talking mannequin.  I suspect that it would take the average group of 15 individuals that sat down and reviewed the nation's problems and then make decisions about how to correct them and then direct the individual technocrats to develop how they will implement, tweak it again, and then implement, review and go at it again.  I believe they would quickly handle a rewrite of our tax code, produce fair taxation, and develop a budget that reduces the outlandish deficit spending our government has become dependent upon.  My thought is this is a temporary group of ordinary citizens that are needed to perform what is necessary while the politicians are forced to the sidelines until they understand they can either begin representing the people, make decisions for the common good or they may stay on the sidelines for good. 

 

If that did not work I am ready for a monarchy/benevolent dictator approach to government. 

 

I wonder which religious groups could support either of those forms of government?

Share this post


Link to post

There is also an acknowledged difference (voting gap) between  male and female, this could have added interesting results, however the pole chose not to address this.

A better poll would have included sex or gender, age, race, ethnicity, in addition to religion.

I also find it odd that the pole separated the Mormons from Christians.

I'm originally from a North-East City which is probably at  least 80% Catholic, (with a population of 47k it has 5 Catholic churches (large structures which accommodate many), 3 Catholic K-8 Schools,  2 Catholic High Schools, so it clearly is dominated by Catholics.

 My family there is somewhat large and to a number Obama's approval is rather low.

This causes me to question the poll  methods or results as in my experience, his approval is likely lower than shown.

However these are the 'old' and established Catholics and not the newer ones, this could account for such differences.

 

The Church seems intent on altering the traditional demographic of it's followers as part of it's social, and not necessarily religious, endeavors.

While that is another discussion, it has strong bearing on voting patterns. The older and thus more established tend to support a more conservative value, the new tend to vote the party which they perceive as supporting their needs.

 

I think its also interesting that on a related note, the Mormons of, for example, Nauvou Ill. were considered a completely united voting bloc, so much so that they were perceived as controlling elections, although this was by their enemies. I do suspect that the united Mormon vote of past ages has been diluted politically and is now more divided than it had been.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder how much the fact that Obama's opponent in the last election was a Mormon weighed with the decision to break Mormons out as a demographic group? I suspect strongly that it was at least a topic of discussion when that decision was made.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder how much the fact that Obama's opponent in the last election was a Mormon weighed with the decision to break Mormons out as a demographic group? I suspect strongly that it was at least a topic of discussion when that decision was made.

I don't really think that is why there is that break out, but it could be.

Share this post


Link to post

The best type of government is a benevolent king, the worst type of government is a not benevolent king. Until such time as the Return of the real King I prefer to have a say in what my government does.

Share this post


Link to post

When Gallup polls, they do include questions in other categories.  The presidential approval poll includes questions as to the answerer's race, gender, socio-economic status, and other things.  If you check out the overall presidential approval rating page (http://www.gallup.com/tag/Presidential%2bJob%2bApproval.aspx) you see this... they just happened to think that a religious adherance breakout was interesting in this case.

 

I think that jwhitlock might have a good point as to the reason for the low approval numbers amongst LDS.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not too sure religion played that much of a factor in the election. For a host of non religious reasons the other Mormon Jon Huntsman's champaign  never really caught on.

Share this post


Link to post
Cutting to the chase, Muslims approve most, and Mormons approve least!

 

 

Mormons are often negatively compared to Muslims by the Church's critics...

Share this post


Link to post

-There are about as many LDS as Jewish in the USA, so if you break out one, it makes sense to break out the other.

-The fact that the candidate that ran against Obama in the last election was LDS may have contributed to both breaking out of members as a separate category and influenced the results. It's reasonable to assume that some politically left LDS may have voted for Romney due to his religion, just as the percentage of African-Americans voting for Obama was even higher than that percentage who had voted for Democratic presidents in the last few elections. A good example would be Colin Powell, who self-identifies as Republican, served as Secretary of State under a Republican, and yet enthusiastically endorsed Obama in both 2008 and 2012 as an "historic figure". 

Share this post


Link to post

3DOP, that does not surprise me, but I think it would be logistically very difficult to have a study of all religious denominations and their respective subgroups beyond gender. 

 

to digress into a bit of a rant, then ignore without commenting for I fear it is too political.

 

I have such a jaded perception of our citizenry and their interest in really voting for a qualified leader rather than a talking mannequin.  I suspect that it would take the average group of 15 individuals that sat down and reviewed the nation's problems and then make decisions about how to correct them and then direct the individual technocrats to develop how they will implement, tweak it again, and then implement, review and go at it again.  I believe they would quickly handle a rewrite of our tax code, produce fair taxation, and develop a budget that reduces the outlandish deficit spending our government has become dependent upon.  My thought is this is a temporary group of ordinary citizens that are needed to perform what is necessary while the politicians are forced to the sidelines until they understand they can either begin representing the people, make decisions for the common good or they may stay on the sidelines for good. 

 

If that did not work I am ready for a monarchy/benevolent dictator approach to government. 

 

I wonder which religious groups could support either of those forms of government?

 

Storm Rider, I don't think it is fair to yourself to consider your perception of "our citizenry and their interest in a really qualified leader" as jaded. The Founding Fathers were so "jaded". Do you think they had qualifications for suffrage because they hated "our citizenry"? I do not. It is not bigotry against the unlanded, the illiterate, or women that leads me to see universal suffrage with the same horror as the founders of our country. And for the record, there is nothing wrong with being among the non-voting citizenry, freely pursuing happiness without any reference to the issues of the day.

 

I agree that it would be fun to talk about this stuff among us but I think the problem is that it divides you guys up pretty bitterly sometimes and understandably, the mods don't want to be responsible for a board that shows those divisions. I started off here (in 2004) thinking I could hide my church's warts. But It has begun to be important to me to communicate to those LDS here who are interested in historical Catholicism, that in my opinion most of the Catholic Church is currently in a deep crisis of faith, having exchanged clear teachings of past popes for what the same popes warned against. I am sanguine about a political divide between Traditional Catholicism and what we may call "Contemporary Catholicism". It shows a connection to a similar difference in religious beliefs and practices.

 

In a spirit of ecumenism that never forgets the need for the one true church to call all souls of good will to convert, I suggest that political discussions between the likes of Traditional Catholics and "Orthodox" LDS would only advance such a cause and at the least create affection and good will.  If at the same time I can show myself "divided" from Catholics who despise the faith of their fathers, I am confident that political theory would be a touchstone that would further unite souls of good will, who are appalled at times by what passes for "orthodoxy" in both church and country. God bless you Storm Rider, you're a good man, and far from "jaded".

 

Rory

Share this post


Link to post

3DOP:

 

The founders were remarkable men. But they were men with the temperament of the age they lived in. Only rich white men and in some locals belong to an approved religion could vote. Abigail Adams even remarked on it  when she told her husband John Adams to consider the women.

Share this post


Link to post

I do not know anyone in our little parish of about 300 souls who voted for President Obama and I know everybody. Just as one distinguishes Mormons from other Christians, I would be interested in distinguishing practicing Catholics from non-practicing. I would be very confident that there is not one voter in my chapel and less than 1% of Catholics who assist exclusively at the Traditional Mass who would approve of our current administration. The breakdown would show that those Catholics who don't go to Mass at all would approve of Obama a lot, and those who prefer the New Mass are probably about split as the poll shows. I can't prove it, and I won't argue about it, but I know it.

 

I'm curious to know if you saw this in 2012 and/or showed it to your members since it was directed at Catholics.  There was also a version for Evangelicals:

 

Share this post


Link to post

3DOP:

 

The founders were remarkable men. But they were men with the temperament of the age they lived in. Only rich white men and in some locals belong to an approved religion could vote. Abigail Adams even remarked on it  when she told her husband John Adams to consider the women.

 

Maybe. Some seem to think that ours is always the age with the "temperament" that is superior to every other. Adams and Co. were not deceived by their "age". They looked to the past to try to avoid mistakes. The "temperament" of our age tends to carelessness about the past. In any case, I am confident that if Abigail were here, she would note the foresight of her husband, seeing the sad results of an age failing to heed "the temperament of the age they lived in".

 

 

I'm curious to know if you saw this in 2012 and/or showed it to your members since it was directed at Catholics.  There was also a version for Evangelicals:

 

 

I didn't see it in 2012. I like how it separated issues that are more or less about prudential money policies from those which are about grave moral questions of right and wrong. However, I don't see how Catholics can appeal to any universal principle of religious liberty to abstain from what the state thinks is morally obligatory. When religions are wrong about matters affecting the common good, they lose their liberty, and correctly so. I would rather that the Church try to teach the state what is wrong about the actions that are prescribed than appeal to some dubious precept that would also authorize ritual suicide and pedopolygamy. Catholics believe that even here, in this life, we are trying to make Christ king. We pray, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth..." How can we who take such a commitment seriously if we weakly assent to a law that we find to be gravely objectionable, just so long as a few Catholics get an exemption?  

Share this post


Link to post

I wasn't surprised that LDS were the highest number that were disapproving. 

Share this post


Link to post

I do not know anyone in our little parish of about 300 souls who voted for President Obama and I know everybody. Just as one distinguishes Mormons from other Christians, I would be interested in distinguishing practicing Catholics from non-practicing. I would be very confident that there is not one voter in my chapel and less than 1% of Catholics who assist exclusively at the Traditional Mass who would approve of our current administration. The breakdown would show that those Catholics who don't go to Mass at all would approve of Obama a lot, and those who prefer the New Mass are probably about split as the poll shows. I can't prove it, and I won't argue about it, but I know it.

I totally agree. Catholics voting to re-elect Obama after he basically declared war on one of the most sacred tenets of the Catholic faith is confusing on the surface.

Share this post


Link to post

One can only wait with baited breath, the arrival of another " historic figure " to grace the US with her/his presence .

Share this post


Link to post

One can only wait with baited breath, the arrival of another " historic figure " to grace the US with her/his presence .

 

I don't know tat we have the ability to weather the ineptness of another historic figure.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe. Some seem to think that ours is always the age with the "temperament" that is superior to every other. Adams and Co. were not deceived by their "age". They looked to the past to try to avoid mistakes. The "temperament" of our age tends to carelessness about the past. In any case, I am confident that if Abigail were here, she would note the foresight of her husband, seeing the sad results of an age failing to heed "the temperament of the age they lived in".

 

 

 

I didn't see it in 2012. I like how it separated issues that are more or less about prudential money policies from those which are about grave moral questions of right and wrong. However, I don't see how Catholics can appeal to any universal principle of religious liberty to abstain from what the state thinks is morally obligatory. When religions are wrong about matters affecting the common good, they lose their liberty, and correctly so. I would rather that the Church try to teach the state what is wrong about the actions that are prescribed than appeal to some dubious precept that would also authorize ritual suicide and pedopolygamy. Catholics believe that even here, in this life, we are trying to make Christ king. We pray, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth..." How can we who take such a commitment seriously if we weakly assent to a law that we find to be gravely objectionable, just so long as a few Catholics get an exemption?  

 

I understand why they did separate the issues like that but you actually inferred as to why they should NOT be separate issues.  According to the scriptures, money is just as moral an issue as everything else (Luke 16:9-13).

 

Thus the economy of God is a spiritual representation of what the temporal ecomony of man should be.  In the economy of God, the plan of salvation allows men to choose freely and whatsoever good or evil is done is NOT the responsibility of the plan of salvation, but that of man.  So likewise, man's economic systems should be, as the scripture and doctrine imply or even explicitly state, free in that it's not the system that forces good or evil (in that case there is no morality) but that it allows man to be good or evil as he chooses and to suffere the consequneces thereof.  Hence any type of communalism is against God's moral economic law.  Anything that seeks to eliminate "surplus value" (Karl Marx) is against God's moral economic law.

 

So if one separates money from morality, one is still preaching immorality; an incomplete doctrine that is absent of charity and compassion.

 

This moral connection with money and God's economic law is well illustrated here:

 

Share this post


Link to post

I understand why they did separate the issues like that but you actually inferred as to why they should NOT be separate issues.  According to the scriptures, money is just as moral an issue as everything else (Luke 16:9-13).

 

Thus the economy of God is a spiritual representation of what the temporal ecomony of man should be.  In the economy of God, the plan of salvation allows men to choose freely and whatsoever good or evil is done is NOT the responsibility of the plan of salvation, but that of man.  So likewise, man's economic systems should be, as the scripture and doctrine imply or even explicitly state, free in that it's not the system that forces good or evil (in that case there is no morality) but that it allows man to be good or evil as he chooses and to suffere the consequneces thereof.  Hence any type of communalism is against God's moral economic law.  Anything that seeks to eliminate "surplus value" (Karl Marx) is against God's moral economic law.

 

So if one separates money from morality, one is still preaching immorality; an incomplete doctrine that is absent of charity and compassion.

 

This moral connection with money and God's economic law is well illustrated here:

 

 

BC...hey. I agree that economic questions can have important implications with regards to justice. I originally referred to that which had to do with prudential decisions of "money policy". If it is a question between a mistake about how to invest against a mistake about an act that could reasonably be defined as murder, one is obligated to take care that murder is avoided as a priority over whether a bad investment is made. Of course it is better to satisfy both problems. But if one vote can only support one of the priorites, issues of human life and death take precedence over money. I  don't think all the information is available with regards to energy, which is assuredly an economic issue. Even if we knew which energy policy was most compatible with the Gospel, I would argue that it would be better to suffer from backwards energy policies than to to accommodate murder. 

Share this post


Link to post
But if one vote can only support one of the priorites, issues of human life and death take precedence over money.

 

 

It is a tough choice. I believe God has demostrated via the Fall of Adam that He values freedom and agency more than life and indeed we see that life is often required to maintain those things.  However, I think you're probably referring to abortion.  Fortunately those opposed to abortion on demand are usually the ones also on God's economic side as well.

 

I do strongly disagree with the Catholic stance on capital punishment.  Murder removes ones agency and since agency is valued above life by God, capital punishment is required in those cases as commanded by Genesis 9:6. Notice that this is before the law of Moses so it's fulfillment by Christ doesn't do away with it.  Notice also that the Gospel law is tougher than the law of Moses.  Under the Gospel law of Christ, to even be angry with another is a dangerous sin.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe. Some seem to think that ours is always the age with the "temperament" that is superior to every other. Adams and Co. were not deceived by their "age". They looked to the past to try to avoid mistakes. The "temperament" of our age tends to carelessness about the past. In any case, I am confident that if Abigail were here, she would note the foresight of her husband, seeing the sad results of an age failing to heed "the temperament of the age they lived in".

 

 

As mortal humans it is inescapable. It is not a matter of being deceived. They really were products of their time. Just as we are of ours. We have to remember that they were not rebelling against English law. They were a product of it. What they were rebelling against was being British subjects and not having a say in their government. "No Taxation Without Representation" was their call to self governance. I think their biggest achievement was the separation of Church and State. The "We the People" decide and not the "Divine Right of Kings" to rule. I think she would be pleased. The nation she and her husband helped to birth is now  238 years old. We've survived another British invasion, a blood soaked Civil War, and two existential threats in the 20th Century. Women, city dwellers, minorities, and now 18 year old's have the franchise. She'd be less pleased with some of our more egregious errors and our declining sense of public morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...