Just over half of interviewees (51%) in a Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University study, who identified as “people of faith,” responded that they are likely to vote in the presidential election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The “people of faith” label is given to those who identify with a recognized religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism or Islam.
The study found that approximately 104 million people under the “people of faith” umbrella are not expected to vote this election, including 41 million born-again Christians and 32 million who regularly go to church.
Anecdotal, but there was considerable dissatisfaction and exhaustion with Trump amongst the religious in my hometown back in 2020. Most of them still supported and voted for him, but that any peeled off was novel. Not that they’d ever vote Dem, but simply not voting GOP in a presidential election was a big deal. It’s not inconceivable that the number has increased since.
Perhaps one or two could even be convinced to support the party that advocates for charity, kindness and goodwill to the poor. Responsible stewardship of gods creation. Openness to forgiveness and redemption for criminals. Treating your neighbors well. Just generally doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, even when you do not fully understand them.
Let’s not get crazy
No, let’s stick to pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps the same way Jesus did: by having a powerful father.
No that’s communism, they’d say
but abortion
They’re fine with charity as long as they decide who is deserving of the money. They love government handouts as long as they are going to Christofascist pursuits. Just as Jesus taught us, I guess.
Rights are things all people have equally and unconditionally.
Charity is something that gets given arbitrarilly and under whatever conditions the “givers” of Charity decide and which can stop at any time for anybody and any reason.
I come from a country which used to have a Fascist Dictatorship were pretty much everybody but a handful of people were crushingly poor and while a handful of very rich families who helped maintain the system of oppression and exploitation that caused so much misery, the “ladies” of those families boasted about how much “Charity” they practiced.
Charity is a moral-salve (makes them think and seem to be “good people”) of the better to reduce the moral weight on the from being part of and benefiting from the exploitation and at times even pillaging of the rest of Society.
There is no such party in the US.
The best you can get is the “Let’s make the rich richer by avoiding equality like the plague and never undoing the regressive measures from the Other Party whilst claiming to be charitable” Party.
It’s still better than the “Let’s kill everybody not like me” Party, but lets not try and deceive people with the preposterous fantasy that they’re actual Good Guys rather than Not Quite As Bad Guys.
That’s funny, they usually let the tax cuts expire when it comes time to renew them. They’ll have yet another opportunity here to prove that shortly. Executive actions are also usually overridden. Legislation is harder, unfortunately, unless we remove the filibuster which we probably will at some point.
Anyway, might want to get your facts straight.
Now, it is worth mentioning that they absolutely do not want perfect communist equality, that’s extremely unpopular here in America, probably low single digits in support percentage. We like some economic inequality, just not too much, we call it “mobility”. Yes there are classes, we plan on keeping those, we just let you move from one to another when the system is working appropriately.
I live in Europe.
In my country the politics of the Democrat Party would fall between those of our most rightwing mainstream party and the far-right parties. We do have a Communist party here and they’re seen as far-left so it’s not as if the policies in Healthcare, Education, Public Transportation and Social Safety Net supported and expected by pretty much everybody here are “Communism”.
And this is Portugal, which is a disgrace next to, say, Scandinavia when it comes to being a proper State that properly represents the interests of most people.
You only think the political “weekly reaming” (not in a good sense) over there is great because you know no other way to live and the other guys are the “daily reaming” party.
The US is just horribly bad when it comes to treat all people in a fair and humane way, so being thrown a sweet after their weekly reaming is enough to make many think they’re so priviledged and led by such wonderful politicians, as is normal in an abusive relationship.
It’s not so much that I think it’s great as I understand all the individual causes of everything, since I follow politics. The details are important, who votes for what is important. It’s just a lot to track, and generally isn’t paid much attention unless someone is specifically interested in politics. It’s a very complicated mess, but being accurate has its own value.
I’ve been following politics in various countries and have even been a member of small political parties in two of the countries I’ve lived in (as an EU citizen I get to vote in Local and EU Elections in any EU country I live in) and the lies and deceit also cover the “causes”.
I would say the deceiving goes at least 3 levels deep, sometimes more. You’re being fed spin and misinformation to make you draw the desired conclusions and are even being fed spin and misinformation to make it more likely that you would trust the former kind of spina and misinformation.
What really openned my eyes to the deep stack of lies upon lies in modern politics, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, was being right smack in the middle of the Investment Banking Industry in London during the 2008 Crash and the “Recovery” years after it: the “causes” we were being told about were bullshit if you looked at the Industry from the inside, the official economic figures we were provide were bullshit if you dug down on them (in at least one case doing the calculations from publicly available raw figures using standard Economic formulas yielded very different results from the Official figure) and the people they ended up helping were the ones who least needed any help (pretty much the opposite side of society that needed it).
A lot of what you see might look like good things because you’re fed a carefully crafted picture of the “we have no other option” kind as rationale or you’re given some of the reasons but not the full picture so that you yourself naturally reach the conclusion others desire using that half-picture and hence think they’re doing the right thing. Further, there are various cognitive shortcuts in the human mind, one of which is called “Anchoring” - things look much or they look little always relative to other things - which is used in Sales to get people to accept higher prices (basically, you given them an even higher figure upfront in some way and then the real price doesn’t look so much because the brain is judging that price relative to the first figure), and also in Politics to make barelly benificial measures (or even measures that merelly remove detrimental previous measures) look like they’re great things because that how it looks for people who are used to only getting shit.
Mind you, this kind of manipulation impacts me as much as it does you. It’s just that as the slant is different here and I have a different experience of politics in the various countries I lived in, I can look at what’s done in the US with lots of examples of how governing can be so much more for the majority of people than it is in the US even by the Democrats.
It’s like when I first moved out of my own country, Portugal, to The Netherlands - with the broadening of experience from seeing how things were done elsewhere, looking back at my own homeland revealed all sorts of quirks and ways of doing things which were pretty bad, at all levels (not just Politics) that before I thought “that’s just the way things are”. By having a broader experience of “what can be done” and having my axis of reference moved by that broadening of experience, suddenly things that for me before looked like good things were now viewed as being “the minimum they can get away with”, symbolic and purposefully innefective or similar.
There are other biases worth paying attention to as well, confirmation bias most particularly. This is why details are so important. It’s not good enough to simply wave your hand at “bullshit”. You need to examine exactly what the bullshit is, who it benefits, and most importantly, who votes for it.
That last part is critical. We can whine all day long about our systems, but in any representative government, those votes are the most important data point. Here in the States, for instance, we had a couple specific people in the Senate stonewalling our recent attempts at progressive policies. These specific individuals need to be noted and remembered, instead of taking the easy way out and handwaving the whole system or whole groups of people away.
On top of that, there is still the electorate to consider. The reason the US leans to the right of most of Europe is because the American populace leans much further to the right, to the point of openly flirting with fascism. And not just now, either, it’s littered throughout our history. Even pre-WW2, there was a significant amount of fascist support here, and its never really gone away. Because of our form of government, we will get what we ask for, for better or for worse.
Too bad no such party exists. Many will claim some of that, but their actions show it is false.
I would argue support for higher taxes, social services, more environmental regulation and criminal justice reforms like Harris’ Back On Track program are indicative of pretty strong actions in support of those principles.
You can do that. Many others would argue differently. There is no particular reason to think anyone is correct - even though everyone likes to think they are right all the time.
Don’t forget that stated support for something and actions often tell very different stories.
So how about capping the price of several prescription drugs, resulting in lower profits for pharma companies? Or Walz implementing free school lunches in Minnesota? Those actions speak about anything to you?
Plenty of ecconomicists have said why capping prices are bad. That you read others is your choice. This is supposed to be an exercise in undertanding, not an exercise in convincing someone they are wrong. So quit asking what I think. Instead understand what and why they think - they are not stupid.
It’s not about whether capping some prices is good or bad for the economy. It’s about whether it helps poor people or not, whether its something in-line with Christian principles of helping the poor.
You were asking for actions that back up their words, so I give you actions that show one party is much more in-line with Jesus’ teachings. Where the other one just spits on them while waving an upside-down bible for a photo op.
Get out and vote.
If they get write-in ballots, maybe write “Jesus Christ.”
Get out of here donagy
“Votes for Jesus go to the Republican.”
- Leslie Knope
Despite being from Indiana, I think Leslie would care about fairness to do that. One of her idols was Joe Biden!
“Christians” is doing some heavy lifting in this headline
Seriously, though. “Christians” includes anyone within the net of the Abrahamic religions? This is the widest cast of people possible makes everything said after the title insignificant.
What might be significant, though, is the Muslim population that is disappointed in Harris for not taking a harder stance against Israel, and has threatened not to vote at all.
Personally, I think it’s asinine to avoid a vote because the options are between someone who is not taking a hard line against Israel, and another who is on the record saying that Israel should “finish the job”, but then… I’m not a single-issue voter, so these things affect me differently.
I’m not Muslim, but if my options were to vote for someone who wants to kill my family vs someone who won’t stop selling weapons to those who are actively killing my family, I can understand why they wouldn’t be super excited at those choices.
Not really, if you look at the history of Christianity, they’re right on brand. You’re just accustomed to an odd kind of “Christianity-lite” that manifested over the past century of so, mostly to keep the religion alive as it risked being left in the dust by social progress.
I skimmed the study itself but couldn’t find how this compares to 2020 turnout of the same group. Just that it’s “lower” and has a +/- of 4% margin.
Can they please not vote every year? A lot of them will be people who vote based on irrational ideas, so that’d be a win for reasonable people.
Only if they’re single issue voting for anti abortion but the abortion candidate is morally horrible. I wouldn’t expect the numbers to stay down.
Works for me. Fuck em
It’s not enough to not to vote. It’s critical the we vote AGAINST any and all of these extremists. That’s the only way to begin bringing any sanity to our political dialogue.
We live in a two party system. Not voting for your guy is essentially a vote for the other guy. Especially when elections are this close.
That’s the most common misconception. Not voting for your guy does NOT mean a vote for other guy.
Here is an example:
Let’s say you don’t want candidate B to win but you chose to not vote against B and just sit at home or write in your dog’s name instead.
Candidate A: gets 1000 votes
Candidate B: gets 1002 votes
100 people like you didn’t vote or wrote their dog’s name on ballot.
B wins!
This is what I meant by “actively voting against” vs just not voting.
So not voting for your guy (candidate A) lead to the other guy (candidate B) winning. Seems like you agree with the premise that in our 2 party system, not voting for the candidate you want directly helps the candidate you don’t want.
By your own logic if A wins by 1 vote and you chose not to vote for your guy, B, you essentially gave your vote to A. Good job.
By your own logic if A wins by 1 vote and you chose not to vote for your guy, B, you essentially gave your vote to A. Good job.
When I don’t vote in the upcoming US elections, my lack of a vote will not become one vote for either candidate. I will cast no votes, and the fact of my existence will not be measured on any ballot or counting system.
By not voting for the candidate you prefer, the candidate you prefer gets one fewer votes. That’s it.
That is accurate in a theoretical bubble, but in practice, in a two party system, in an incredibly close race, it’s simply not true.
I do vote. I cast one vote. I don’t vote. I don’t cast one vote.
That is, objectively, the entirety of the truth on the matter.
Please explain to me how me not voting Democrat creates an extra vote for the Republicans. The votes for the Republican candidate(s) remain(s) the same. The difference between the votes is different, of course, by that one vote.
I would point out that the difference between the two votes is the number that matters.
Considering about 30% of the general population votes, this is pretty significant - 20% more christians will vote than Gen pop
Where are you getting those numbers from?
Hmm, it looks like i got confused by this statistic:
Overall, 70% of U.S. adult citizens who were eligible to participate in all three elections between 2018 and 2022 voted in at least one of them, with about half that share (37%) voting in all three.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022
Which says the national average voter turnout for all 3 elections is 37%. The actual national average turnout for any individual election is about 46-66% depending on if it’s a midterm or not. Since this one is not a midterm election, assuming 50% of Christians are voting, this gives non-Christians an advantage.
That’s understandable.
Yeah, don’t count on it. Republicans always vote and they are always vote shitty.
How did I miss this story?!
What story? There is nothing here but propaganda.
So a study wasn’t done? It’s a lie? Do you have evidence for this?
A study wasn’t done.
Weird, since this story is entirely about a study that was done. This seems like a very poor attempt at gaslighting.
It would be ironic if all they did was show up to overturn roe, and this election would have had them sit out the election, but then due to the abortion ammendments they were pushed back into voting.
Calling BULLSHIT. What part do they disagree when it comes to religion?
- Child sex - supported by religion.
- Rape - supported by religion.
- Killing the innocent - supported by religion.
- Controlling women - supported by religion.
- Anti LGBTQ+ - supported by religion.
- Hatred of other races - supported by religion.
So what is it that will make them change this time?
You might also point out, for balance, that the opposites of those things can also be expected within religious frameworks.
With or without religion, it is people who purposefully carry out those actions while more often than not being aware they can be conceived of as harmful. You can try to take religion away from people, but don’t expect hate to go with it.
Multiple cultures were well organized and thriving before established religion was forced on them.
The opposite isn’t laid out like the good ol hate.
A form of religion will always exist or have existed. The problem when mass religions is the hive mind effect. People are outnumbered and go along with the groups even if it is against them.
Multiple cultures were well organized and thriving before established religion was forced on them.
I don’t choose to pretend that previous e.g. animist spiritual systems were not religions. This is because I define religion by human practice and adherence, as humans define religion in a world where they invent it.
Yeah, to me religion is just cultural, ceremonial, practices designed to deal with their lack of understanding of the natural world, and assumption of supernatural forces. While animism wasn’t religion as we know it, it did have it’s adherence to practices, and ethics, etc. They were far more local, more based on individual tribes. They were religion, none the less. Just not widespread, centralized, formalized, religion as we see today.
Still plenty of people being spiritual ‘in their own way’.
deleted by creator
That seems odd to me considering that antiabortion rules are on the line. I would think they’d be especially motivated to support Trump and get the Senate flipped Republican to keep a federal law from getting implemented to reverse the decision that government can force doctors to let you die if a fetus is the one killing you.
From my experience in my very red state, there’s a high degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to those things. A family friend who’s very religious is secretly undergoing IVF even though the church banned it’s use because they want a child more than the threat of excommunication. Supposedly they’ll be forgiven for going against the church since they’re “fundamentally good” people.
Trump told them they would never need to vote again after this election.
A bunch of them probably stopped listening after they heard what they want to hear and didn’t hear the part after “again”
apologize.lol send this to your friends
Not sure how this is specific to Christians and not just a reflection of the larger population, only around half the population voted in the last federal presidential US election in 2020
