kllindley Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 14 minutes ago, california boy said: Am I reading this question right? Do you think anyone on the left does not value any religious rights? Just because their religious beliefs are different than yours? That they find nothing distasteful in their religious views on gay rights and abortion doesn't mean they are not religious. News to you. The left supports freedom of religion and many of them are indeed just as religious as you are. Again, not what I said at all. You seem determined to read what you want into my posts. I've said nothing about the left not being religious or valuing religious rights. But go ahead and keep assuming what you want. 1 Link to comment
pogi Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 18 hours ago, kllindley said: I wasn't talking about gathering. I'm glad you have more faith in the system than the apostles. I'm sure you are right and they don't know what they are talking about. 3 hours ago, pogi said: I haven't seen any apostle express the same fears of governors using made up public health emergencies to restrict churches from gathering. Elder Bednar's concerns were very different from your's expressed here. 2 hours ago, kllindley said: You continue to falsely attribute to me something I didn't say. Not cool. You accused me of being out of line with the apostles faith/fears of the system in regards to religious liberty. I assumed this was because I don't hold your same fears and pessimistic attitudes, because I never once mentioned any apostles, other than Elder Bednar in a different thread. I don't believe the apostles in general hold your same pessimistic attitudes and fears either. If that is not where you were coming from, and if I misunderstood you, I am sorry, but that leaves me with no clue as to where you are coming from then. I am terribly confused as to why you pit me against the apostles. Talk about not cool! You are trying to turn this into a me against them for some reason. Based on what? Is it because I said I was optimistic that this will have no lasting effect? How exactly am I out of sink in this regard? Are they all pessimistic about the lasting effects of the pandemic on religious liberty or something? I must have missed that. Are there no optimists among the apostles? Not one? I don't hold your same fears, sorry. I have said nothing of the apostles. Nor have I said anything about some unwavering faith in the system. I know it needs up-keeping. I have never said otherwise. I believe that religious liberty needs defending. I have always suggested that we need to address inequities and fight against any attacks against religious liberty. The only thing that I have said is that I am optimistic that there will be no lasting negative effect on religious liberty from the government interventions during the pandemic. So, who is really falsely attributing things here? Link to comment
california boy Posted November 29, 2020 Share Posted November 29, 2020 1 hour ago, kllindley said: Again, not what I said at all. You seem determined to read what you want into my posts. I've said nothing about the left not being religious or valuing religious rights. But go ahead and keep assuming what you want. Quite frankly I am trying to understand what you are saying other than you disagree with the left wing on gay rights and abortion. Maybe you could explain what you are saying about the left and religious beliefs. Link to comment
kllindley Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, california boy said: Quite frankly I am trying to understand what you are saying other than you disagree with the left wing on gay rights and abortion. Maybe you could explain what you are saying about the left and religious beliefs. I said: 5 hours ago, kllindley said: I am talking about people becoming more comfortable with administrative mandates and executive action in behalf of the "greater good." Even when those actions might also unfortunately clash with religious liberty. I mentioned in a later comment that especially around abortion and LGBT issues, this is already an emerging trend. I have seen legislators advocate executive action from the Biden administration to push the Equality Act even if the legislature cannot get it passed. As currently written, the Equality Act offers no caveats for Religion and religious organizations. Edited November 30, 2020 by kllindley Link to comment
kllindley Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 1 hour ago, pogi said: You accused me of being out of line with the apostles faith/fears of the system in regards to religious liberty. I assumed this was because I don't hold your same fears and pessimistic attitudes, because I never once mentioned any apostles, other than Elder Bednar in a different thread. I don't believe the apostles in general hold your same pessimistic attitudes and fears either. If that is not where you were coming from, and if I misunderstood you, I am sorry, but that leaves me with no clue as to where you are coming from then. I am terribly confused as to why you pit me against the apostles. Talk about not cool! You are trying to turn this into a me against them for some reason. Based on what? Is it because I said I was optimistic that this will have no lasting effect? How exactly am I out of sink in this regard? Are they all pessimistic about the lasting effects of the pandemic on religious liberty or something? I must have missed that. Are there no optimists among the apostles? Not one? I don't hold your same fears, sorry. I have said nothing of the apostles. Nor have I said anything about some unwavering faith in the system. I know it needs up-keeping. I have never said otherwise. I believe that religious liberty needs defending. I have always suggested that we need to address inequities and fight against any attacks against religious liberty. The only thing that I have said is that I am optimistic that there will be no lasting negative effect on religious liberty from the government interventions during the pandemic. So, who is really falsely attributing things here? Previously, you did not say that you were optimistic, you made the categorical statement that there would be no lasting negative effect. That is what I was responding to. You can have the last word. I'm done. Link to comment
pogi Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 21 minutes ago, kllindley said: Previously, you did not say that you were optimistic Here is what I said 22 hours ago, pogi said: I am optimistic about religious liberty. I understand the need to keep up our guard, but I am optimistic. 22 minutes ago, kllindley said: you made the categorical statement that there would be no lasting negative effect. That is what I was responding to. You can have the last word. I'm done. I do believe that there will be no lasting negative effect on religious liberty due to government interventions during the pandemic. That is my optimistic statement of belief. I don't think it is fair to somehow try and pit me against the apostles as if they are all united in believing that government interventions during the pandemic will have any enduring negative effect on religious liberty. I don't think they are all pessimists on this matter. I am not sure what it is the apostles are unitedly saying that I am disagreeing with in this regard. Link to comment
pogi Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 (edited) 20 hours ago, CV75 said: What you are describing (I bolded it) is a strictly tactical contextualization of the problem and interventions. All we can do is assess the problem by looking at overall attitudes towards religious liberty in national polls (looking good there - unless you have a more objective and reliable measure that shows something different), by assessing historical trends in executive orders (looks good there too with an ever so slight artificial blip from the pandemic), and by looking at specific attacks/issues as they arise and how those resolve in the courts (looking favorable there too from a holistic perspective). When I consider all of these things - I am optimistic. I don't see the same downward trend and pessimistic assessment of religious liberty. I think we are standing on very strong ground right now and are seeing positive results in the courts more often than not. Yes things can change and we always need to stand guard, based on my assessment, we are healthy and attitudes are trending favorably at present. I am not strictly tactical. I believe in prevention too. That is mostly done through brotherly kindness and being good neighbors and through civility and compromise as the church emulates and not bulldozing the issues, and by voting for friends of religious liberty from both sides of the isle. Making this a partisan issue will backfire. It isn't partisan. We need friends not enemies on this issue. Both sides uphold religious liberty. That is solid common ground to build relationships of trust from. What more can we do than that? We can bemoan and complain to the internet world that we are unfavored and trending downward (sounds like fake news to me). If you think that will win over friends and influence people, have at it I guess, but I think people are sick and tired of that approach to issues. It is a divisive approach filled with unsubstantiated boogeymen, but is generally aimed at democrats, placing them on the defensive. That is a bad move. We need to be making friends with them and working this issue together. The vast majority of them are lovers of religious liberty too. Edited November 30, 2020 by pogi Link to comment
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 On 11/28/2020 at 8:25 PM, kllindley said: I sincerely fear that other things will be declared "public health emergencies" in other to justify continued infringement on religious views that leaders and governments find undesirable. I just don't think that we are that far away from this anyway. While I actually support restrictions in public worship in the face of this pandemic, I also believe they will lead to additional efforts to suppress religious liberty. Especially, when those religious beliefs offend the sanctity of the left's Sacred Cows. I hope I am wrong; I really do. But I'm not optimistic. I find the problem is more on the far Right at the moment, many of whom spend their days calling the current public health crisis a hoax. I understand why they are afraid of fake crises creating stupid reasons for restrictions since they believe they are living in that scenario but they are so far out of touch with reality their thoughts and opinions are worthless. I see no precedent for what I should be worried about here. I am worried about things like the Patriot Act being passed to combat a specific external threat and using that threat to erode liberty in general but that is not what the thread is about. I see the apostle’s counsel to preserve religious freedom as being a pressing concern at the local level and not really at the state or national levels. If it erodes it will happen at the local level too. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 On 11/29/2020 at 12:03 PM, CV75 said: The restrictions are temporary. The problem is when they are also inequitable and people acquiesce to it for any number of excuses. When inequities are not challenged, even when they are mild, unintentional or part of the learning curve, society becomes that much more groomed for less-urgent, less-temporary and more-restrictive actions. They are being challenged and the system is working. Where is the threat? Link to comment
CV75 Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 1 hour ago, pogi said: All we can do is assess the problem by looking at overall attitudes towards religious liberty in national polls (looking good there - unless you have a more objective and reliable measure that shows something different), by assessing historical trends in executive orders (looks good there too with an ever so slight artificial blip from the pandemic), and by looking at specific attacks/issues as they arise and how those resolve in the courts (looking favorable there too from a holistic perspective). When I consider all of these things - I am optimistic. I don't see the same downward trend and pessimistic assessment of religious liberty. I think we are standing on very strong ground right now and are seeing positive results in the courts more often than not. Yes things can change and we always need to stand guard, based on my assessment, we are healthy and attitudes are trending favorably at present. I am not strictly tactical. I believe in prevention too. That is mostly done through brotherly kindness and being good neighbors and through civility and compromise as the church emulates and not bulldozing the issues, and by voting for friends of religious liberty from both sides of the isle. Making this a partisan issue will backfire. It isn't partisan. We need friends not enemies on this issue. Both sides uphold religious liberty. That is solid common ground to build relationships of trust from. What more can we do than that? We can bemoan and complain to the internet world that we are unfavored and trending downward (sounds like fake news to me). If you think that will win over friends and influence people, have at it I guess, but I think people are sick and tired of that approach to issues. It is a divisive approach filled with unsubstantiated boogeymen, but is generally aimed at democrats, placing them on the defensive. That is a bad move. We need to be making friends with them and working this issue together. The vast majority of them are lovers of religious liberty too. I am glad that your tactical orientation includes an optimistic attitude and a bipartisan approach to making friends and influencing people, especially among those who may protect religious freedom differently than you do. Link to comment
pogi Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 37 minutes ago, CV75 said: I am glad that your tactical orientation includes an optimistic attitude and a bipartisan approach to making friends and influencing people, especially among those who may protect religious freedom differently than you do. How exactly are you protecting religious liberty "differently" from me? All you have done here that I can recall is to call for diligence (which is very unspecific), to which I have agreed that we always need to be on-guard. I disagree with your pessimistic and narrow perspective of general trends in attitudes and executive orders, but other than that, you have not really outlined any approach for me to be contrarian with. Link to comment
CV75 Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: They are being challenged and the system is working. Where is the threat? I haven’t used the word “threat” except in one or two posts many pages (now 2 weeks) ago, in an attempt to align my reply to my interlocutor’s use of it. Seeing how this thread has gone, I now take it as a strawman. Or, that you perhaps mistakenly interpret not counting on you to champion the challenges and check the system as a “threat.” I can only guess. But either address the principle I actually posted, or don’t and chalk it up to my poor communication. Link to comment
CV75 Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 1 minute ago, pogi said: How exactly are you protecting religious liberty "differently" from me? All you have done here that I can recall is to call for diligence (which is very unspecific), to which I have agreed that we always need to be on-guard. I disagree with your pessimistic and narrow perspective of general trends in attitudes and executive orders, but other than that, you have not really outlined any approach for me to be contrarian with. I am also happy that my more strategic orientation also includes an optimistic attitude and a bipartisan approach to making friends and influencing people, especially among those who may protect religious freedom differently than I do. Link to comment
pogi Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 12 minutes ago, CV75 said: I am also happy that my more strategic orientation... How are you "more strategic" in your approach than me? You sarcastically accuse me of being intolerant to different strategies, but you haven't even given me a strategy to be intolerant towards. 18 minutes ago, CV75 said: especially among those who may protect religious freedom differently than I do. Is that why you came after me for expressing my optimism as an alternative to the many pessimistic assessments I heard? Link to comment
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 23 minutes ago, CV75 said: I haven’t used the word “threat” except in one or two posts many pages (now 2 weeks) ago, in an attempt to align my reply to my interlocutor’s use of it. Seeing how this thread has gone, I now take it as a strawman. Or, that you perhaps mistakenly interpret not counting on you to champion the challenges and check the system as a “threat.” I can only guess. But either address the principle I actually posted, or don’t and chalk it up to my poor communication. So the “danger” thing in the title is an exaggeration. It seems like this has been walked back by some to being a very vague warning about a possible threat that we have seen no sign of yet but there is a minor possibility that someone could use Covid as precedent to shut down churches outside of a pandemic but we are a little vague there too. So I guess the only real question is how have we conversed for ten pages on this? Link to comment
CV75 Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 41 minutes ago, pogi said: How are you "more strategic" in your approach than me? You sarcastically accuse me of being intolerant to different strategies, but you haven't even given me a strategy to be intolerant towards. Is that why you came after me for expressing my optimism as an alternative to the many pessimistic assessments I heard? No, I am literally happy for you, and did not mean to come across as coming after you. Ahab and I had a one or two-page back and forth and I have the same attitude toward you. Posted November 19 32 minutes ago, The Nehor said: So the “danger” thing in the title is an exaggeration. It seems like this has been walked back by some to being a very vague warning about a possible threat that we have seen no sign of yet but there is a minor possibility that someone could use Covid as precedent to shut down churches outside of a pandemic but we are a little vague there too. So I guess the only real question is how have we conversed for ten pages on this? Ha-ha, evidently, I went beyond the title and have my own take (and certainly not what you have characterized above). But I do align with Justice Alito’s opinion a bit more than you do, based on my rationale which you have not accepted. I cannot speak for those who have walked back their position, but mine remains the same as expressed on page 1. Link to comment
smac97 Posted November 30, 2020 Author Share Posted November 30, 2020 23 hours ago, california boy said: That they find nothing distasteful in their religious views on gay rights and abortion doesn't mean they are not religious. News to you. The left supports freedom of religion and many of them are indeed just as religious as you are. Putting absolutes aside, here are some stats: The Religious Left Has a Numbers Problem Quote I estimate that about 20% of non-Hispanic white Americans are both conservative and highly religious (defined as those who attend religious services weekly or almost every week and for whom religion is important in their daily life) and thus are, broadly speaking, the "religious right." By contrast, only 4% of non-Hispanic white Americans are both liberal and highly religious, or the group that would constitute the "religious left." More broadly, 52% of white conservatives are highly religious, compared with only 16% of white liberals. The Religious Left is Small But Loud Quote The religious left is the most active group in American politics. The figure below shows the average number of political activities (campaigning, putting up signs and stickers, protesting, donating to a party or candidate, contacting public officials, and attending local meetings) in 2018 separated by church attendance and ideology. ... While it appears that the religious left is loud, how big is it? There are not many who attend weekly or more often and identify as very liberal. In 2018, they were just 1.3%. Let’s expand out the definition a bit (liberal + very liberal, along with those who attend several times a month or more often) and track it over time from 2006-18. Their numbers have been declining since the start of the series from a high of 7.6% to a low in 2014 of just under 5%. The Christian Right Is Helping Drive Liberals Away From Religion Quote Over the course of a single generation, the country has gotten a lot less religious. As recently as the early 1990s, less than 10 percent of Americans lacked a formal religious affiliation, and liberals weren’t all that much likelier to be nonreligious than the public overall. Today, however, nearly one in four Americans are religiously unaffiliated. That includes almost 40 percent of liberals — up from 12 percent in 1990, according to the 2018 General Social Survey. The share of conservatives and moderates who have no religion, meanwhile, has risen less dramatically. The result is that today, most people’s political ideology is more tightly tethered to their religious identity. The overlap is far from complete — there are still some secular conservatives and even more religious liberals. In fact, the majority of Democratic voters are religiously affiliated. But the more liberal you are, the less likely you are to belong to a faith; whereas if you’re conservative, you’re more likely to say you’re religious. To be sure, religious belief and practice can still exist without a label. Many people who are religiously unaffiliated still believe in God, or slip back into the pews a few times a year. But liberals are also cutting ties with religious institutions — since 1990, the share of liberals who never attend religious services has tripled. And they’re less likely to believe in God: The percentage of liberals who say they know God exists fell from 53 percent in 1991 to 36 percent in 2018. ... According to surveys by the Pew Research Center, the percentage of liberals who believe that churches and religious organizations positively contribute to society dropped from nearly half (49 percent) in 2010 to only one-third (33 percent) today. ... The political implications of this shift are already evident. As more liberals become nonreligious, the Democratic Party’s base is growing more secular, complicating the party’s efforts at reaching more religious voters. But what it means for religion is less clear. Paul Djupe, a political scientist at Denison College, said that the impact might be blunted by the fact that the people who are becoming nonreligious mostly weren’t that involved in religion to begin with. Why Democrats Struggle To Mobilize A ‘Religious Left’ Quote Democrats have gotten a lot less religious And even though a substantial number of Democrats are religious, they have come to make up a smaller and smaller subset of the party. Over the past two decades, the share of people in the Democratic coalition who don’t identify with any religion doubled, from 14 percent in 1998 to 28 percent in 2018, according to the General Social Survey. The result is that today’s Democratic Party is increasingly secular, which complicates and limits traditional forms of faith outreach. “This emerging group of secular Democrats coexists a little uneasily with the more religious wing of the party,” said David Campbell, a political science professor at Notre Dame and the coauthor of “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us.” “It’s a sizeable portion of the electorate to ignore, but I think the party has yet to figure out how to appeal to these people.” Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2020/11/30/21749370/new-york-religion-pandemic-supreme-court-struck-down-roman-catholic-diocese-of-brooklyn 2 Link to comment
CV75 Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2020/11/30/21749370/new-york-religion-pandemic-supreme-court-struck-down-roman-catholic-diocese-of-brooklyn I know some will (rhetorically) ask, “So where’s the danger of religious liberty becoming a second-class right?” In reading this, it seems to me that in a national milieu where you have trends such as those linked in smac’s post above, combined with increasingly polarized political/social leanings, we will have more sore losers who fight back and a growing majority of “unaffiliated” who let them. 2 Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 15 hours ago, smac97 said: Putting absolutes aside, here are some stats: The Religious Left Has a Numbers Problem The Religious Left is Small But Loud The Christian Right Is Helping Drive Liberals Away From Religion Why Democrats Struggle To Mobilize A ‘Religious Left’ Thanks, -Smac One of your "left" are "evil" posts again. Just because a person is "left" and a Democrat, they are irreligious, immoral and corrupt. The Republicans combined to disenfranchise women LDS voters, disincorporate the church and put fathers (and one mother) in the federal penitentiary. Intolerant and bigoted. I'm glad I'm not on the "right." (Not "left" for that matter.) 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted December 1, 2020 Author Share Posted December 1, 2020 9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: One of your "left" are "evil" posts again. I said no such thing. I disagree with and reject both this characterization and the underlying sentiment. 9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Just because a person is "left" and a Democrat, they are irreligious, immoral and corrupt. I said none of this. And I disagree with it. 9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: The Republicans combined to disenfranchise women LDS voters, disincorporate the church and put fathers (and one mother) in the federal penitentiary. Here is a brief excerpt of a history of my great-great grandfather, Alexander F. Macdonald: Quote Rumors had circulated in the East that the Mormons were a subversive lot, dominated by a sinister cabal of leaders headed by Brigham Young. An army was dispatched to Utah to put down the alleged Mormon rebellion, and Utah was thrown into turmoil. By 1858, Johnston's Army had arrived and established Camp Floyd west of Utah Lake. In 1859, a federal judge opened court in the county seat at Provo, and Alexander Macdonald was called in to serve on a grand jury. However, that was just a ruse to deceive him, and as soon as he arrived at the court he was arrested along with a few other men. All those involved knew there was nothing to charge him with, and that the authorities merely wanted to intimidate him into implicating Brigham Young, their real goal, in several crimes. However, the federal authorities picked the wrong man in A. F. Macdonald. Although they kept him under armed guards 24 hours a day, most of the time with a cocked pistol held against his temple, Alexander resisted their efforts to lie or betray his leader. He knew that Brigham Young was not guilty of any crime other than espousing and leading an unusual and unpopular religion. Still they kept A. F. Macdonald imprisoned, and finally after a month, fearing the incensed citizenry of Utah Valley would rescue Macdonald by force, the authorities decided to transfer him to Camp Floyd. They tied him straddled to a cannon and hauled him for several days to the army headquarters. Army diarist Albert Tracy records: “Of our convoy of prisoners, one McDonald, stood not less than six feet three, and towered above the guard like a giant. . . . He strode with an air of martyr-like defiance, and seemed to be high in favor with the lookers on. The remaining prisoners were downcast, or, perhaps, dogged of manner, and seemed less confident.” Clearly, Alexander was not threatened although he was treated cruelly by his 7th Regiment captors. Thomas Ackley, another military officer recorded in his journal how Alexander Macdonald, sleeping in the guard house hall, exhausted after the long march from Provo, was nearly murdered by an imprisoned soldier. Walking into the room with his ball and chain, “One of these fellows let his iron ball drop, . . . intending for it to strike the Mormon in the head, and would have killed him had it not been that he threw up his arm to save himself, but broke his arm.” (The diarist later identifies the injured man as Alexander Macdonald who was denied medical treatment for his broken arm.) Ackley later expressed amusement at observing Macdonald and other prisoners working “. . . with large sacks of sand tied to them, others with large logs of wood strapped to their backs for punishment. . . . .” Later Alexander was confined to small adobe room, barely large enough for him to stand, and with only a small pile of straw as bathroom facilities. A frantic Elizabeth tried to visit him and bring him bedding and food, but she was turned away. One of the officers had Macdonald brought to his quarters at night to secretly teach him the doctrines of Mormonism. Alexander later told his wife that the young captain believed the teachings but feared that joining the church would jeopardize his military career. Eventually the Army was embarrassed into releasing A.F. Macdonald and he returned to his wife and sons in Springville. And yet a number of Alexander's descendants, including myself and my brother (who happens to be Alexander's namesake) have served the very military that had so mistreated Alexander. I see little value in holding grudges. The United States is the greatest country in the history of the world, notwithstanding its past poor treatment of our ancestors. 9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Intolerant and bigoted. You fabricate slanders regarding a political group, falsely attribute them to me, complaint about them, and then proceed to actually slander a political group you dislike. The irony is . . . strong. 9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: I'm glad I'm not on the "right." (Not "left" for that matter.) I'm not sure you have a firm understanding of my political ideology. Thanks, -Smac 2 Link to comment
pogi Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 (edited) 20 hours ago, smac97 said: Putting absolutes aside, here are some stats: Quote By contrast, only 4% of non-Hispanic white Americans are both liberal and highly religious, or the group that would constitute the "religious left." More broadly, 52% of white conservatives are highly religious, compared with only 16% of white liberals. Why are they only looking at white people? The left is much more diverse than that. And if we include non-Christian religions who also uphold religious freedom like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, you will find that democrats dominate in those religions. Here is an interesting stat, there are only 2 religious groups that are predominantly republican - "Evangelical protestant" and...you guessed it, "Mormonism". Mormonism takes the cake...big time! No other religious group is so dominantly republican. Main-line protestants and Catholics are fairly evenly split down the middle, and orthodox Christians lean slightly left. But the non-Christian faiths which many religious liberty loving republicans seem to ignore are HEAVILY democrat and also support religious liberty. Contrary to this misleading 4% figure, 72% of democrats say that religion is very important or somewhat important in their life. 64% of democrats attend religious services weekly or once or twice/month. 66% pray daily or weekly. https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/ In terms of opinions about religious liberty: Quote In the survey, 88 percent of Republicans said it was important to protect the religious liberty of Christians, while only 60 percent said so for Muslims. Democrats also ranked religious freedom for Muslims as a lower priority. Eighty-three percent of Democrats said the protections were important for Christians, while only 67 percent said so for Muslims. https://www.columbiatribune.com/article/20160102/Lifestyle/301029986 As you can see, democrats are very close in rating religious liberty as important to protect for Christians as republicans are, and they are actually stronger on religious liberty for non-Christian faiths. Edited December 1, 2020 by pogi 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted December 1, 2020 Author Share Posted December 1, 2020 12 minutes ago, pogi said: Why are they only looking at white people? The left is much more diverse than that. And if we include non-Christian religions who also uphold religious freedom like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, you will find that democrats dominate in those religions. Here is an interesting stat, there are only 2 religious groups that are predominantly republican - "Evangelical protestant" and...you guessed it, "Mormonism". Mormonism takes the cake...big time! No other religious group is so dominantly republican. Main-line protestants and Catholics are fairly evenly split down the middle, and orthodox Christians lean slightly left. But the non-Christian faiths which many religious liberty loving republicans seem to ignore are HEAVILY democrat and also support religious liberty. Contrary to this misleading 4% figure, 72% of democrats say that religion is very important or somewhat important in their life. 64% of democrats attend religious services weekly or once or twice/month. 66% pray daily or weekly. https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/ In terms of opinions about religious liberty: As you can see, democrats are very close in rating religious liberty as important to protect for Christians as republicans are, and they are actually stronger on religious liberty for non-Christian faiths. I provided stats I found online. I am happy to have them corrected or rebutted. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
pogi Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, smac97 said: I provided stats I found online. I am happy to have them corrected or rebutted. Thanks, -Smac Sounds good. I hope you will consider some of the figures and studies that I have provided as a more comprehensive picture of religiosity and better reflection of attitudes towards religious freedom among the left. Edited December 1, 2020 by pogi 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted December 1, 2020 Author Share Posted December 1, 2020 (edited) 59 minutes ago, pogi said: Sounds good. I hope you will consider some of the figures and studies that I have provided as a more comprehensive picture of religiosity and better reflection of attitudes towards religious freedom among the left. I will. Contrary to Bob's venomous and false comments about me, I disagree with some philosophical and political positions taken by the "Left," but I do not harbor animosity towards them. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 1, 2020 by smac97 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts