I haven't thanked you in a while, but--again--thank you for recording a version of this for us to listen to. Every time the AI voice reads Nones, it is as "Know-ness".
This is a good priors update for the thinking in the US electorate and public at large. It is important to remember that government representation is where the Christian Nationalism specter is raised; not in the hearts and minds of the electorate.
I'm not sure I interpret your first question in the same way you do. What I see is that 42% of agnostics disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that they prefer that the President be a person of faith. But that doesn't mean they do not want the President to be a person of faith. (Or do you mean that they don't *expressly* want a person of faith in the White House, i.e., they don't mind either way?)
As a matter of fact, as an atheist and assuming I were American, I'm not sure how I would answer this question. I strongly disagree with the idea that I prefer the President to be a person of faith, but I think it's fine for them to be so, assuming (which is a big if) they view themselves as equally the President of all Americans, including the nonbelieving ones. (Americans are much more religious and ostentatiously Christian than people in my country, so the vast majority of potential presidents will openly be people of faith anyway.) So would "Neutral" be more likely to be understood as my actual position?
There was some choice turns of phrase in this one Ryan. Electing someone without faith is far from someone "actively speaking against faith" and electing someone with faith is far from electing a "religious extremist". Sure, both of those kinds of people exist and certainly some groups of voters will believe they exist more than they do but I imagine most people accurately understand that the middle ground would be most likely.
It's a good question to ask. I suspect that almost everyone read "Christian" into this, even with the statement "person of faith."
I'd be curious if age made any difference here. To me, as a Millennial evangelical, the insistence that a President identify as Christian regardless of demonstrating any further commitment to Christian belief or to the church, comes across as very Mainline Boomer (or older -- my WW2-gen grandparents thought this way more strongly than my parents). Not that it's even bad; on balance it's probably good, but it's so far off from my ways of thinking that I can't really relate to it.
It has something to do with a presupposition of cultural Christianity; that someone who doesn't at least pay lip service to Christianity is "other", and by this standard no major party Presidential candidate of recent history has really been "other" because all of them paid the lip service. It was against this cultural backdrop that liberal Christianity thrived, and it's interesting how many of our Presidents openly associated with liberal forms of Christianity, almost from the beginning of this republic but right through to Obama.
At least part of the difference, from what I can tell, is that something like Masterpiece Cakeshop was inconceivable in those days, and from where I'm sitting, there is no daylight between the more ostensibly pious Democrats and the more secular ones on issues of religious freedom like that. So what difference does the ostensible piety make?
The statements made by Erika Kirk and President Trump at the Charlie Kirk memorial would seem to provide an opportunity to present some survey items that could elicit interesting and useful information about how respondents understand what it means to be (identify as) a Christian and about how respondents identify politicians’ religiosity. Just to give some idea of what I have in mind:
Survey 1 at time t:
Are you familiar with the following texts: [present several, including this part of the Sermon on the Mount]
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you … Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
Later in Survey 1, present items with unattributed versions of remarks by Erika Kirk and President Trump at the Charlie Kirk memorial:
Widow of murdered man: “My husband wanted to save young men just like the one who took his life. … our Savior said, "Father, forgive them for they not know what they do." That man, that young man, I forgive him. I forgive him, because … it was what Christ did, and is what my husband would do. The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love, and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.”
The statement directly above expresses a defining (central? essential? characteristic?) Christian attitude.
SA A NAND D SD
Admirer of murdered man: “Your husband did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with your husband. I hate my opponent, and I don't want the best for them. … I can’t stand my opponent.”
This statement directly above expresses a defining (central? essential? characteristic?) Christian attitude.
SA A NAND D SD
Survey 2 at time t+, same as Survey 1 at time t, but with the quotes attributed to the relevant individuals:
Are you familiar with the following texts: [present several, including this part of the Sermon on the Mount] …
Erika Kirk: “My husband, Charlie, he wanted to save young men just like the one who took his life. … our Savior said, "Father, forgive them for they not know what they do." That man, that young man, I forgive him. I forgive him, because … it was what Christ did, and is what Charlie would do. The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love, and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.” [Source: https://www.rev.com/transcripts/erika-kirk-speaks-at-memorial]
This statement by Erika Kirk expresses a defining (central? essential? characteristic?) Christian attitude.
SA A NAND D SD
President Trump: “[Charlie Kirk] did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don't want the best for them. … I can’t stand my opponent.” [Source: https://www.rev.com/transcripts/trump-speaks-at-kirk-memorial]
This statement by President Trump expresses a defining (central? essential? characteristic?) Christian attitude.
SA A NAND D SD
I don’t know if it would be feasible to survey the same group twice and get useful results. If months separated the two surveys, respondents might well forget they’d taken the first survey.
One might also omit the Bible quotes in other versions of the survey.
It may be, however, that there is enough data in surveys already done (e.g., the Liggonier surveys) to answer any implicated questions and thus that these items would add little if anything about the attitudes of those who identify as Christians.
I haven't thanked you in a while, but--again--thank you for recording a version of this for us to listen to. Every time the AI voice reads Nones, it is as "Know-ness".
This is a good priors update for the thinking in the US electorate and public at large. It is important to remember that government representation is where the Christian Nationalism specter is raised; not in the hearts and minds of the electorate.
> For agnostics, nearly half were
> ambivalent, but nearly the same share
> (42%) did not want a person of faith in
> the White House.
I'm not sure I interpret your first question in the same way you do. What I see is that 42% of agnostics disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that they prefer that the President be a person of faith. But that doesn't mean they do not want the President to be a person of faith. (Or do you mean that they don't *expressly* want a person of faith in the White House, i.e., they don't mind either way?)
As a matter of fact, as an atheist and assuming I were American, I'm not sure how I would answer this question. I strongly disagree with the idea that I prefer the President to be a person of faith, but I think it's fine for them to be so, assuming (which is a big if) they view themselves as equally the President of all Americans, including the nonbelieving ones. (Americans are much more religious and ostentatiously Christian than people in my country, so the vast majority of potential presidents will openly be people of faith anyway.) So would "Neutral" be more likely to be understood as my actual position?
There was some choice turns of phrase in this one Ryan. Electing someone without faith is far from someone "actively speaking against faith" and electing someone with faith is far from electing a "religious extremist". Sure, both of those kinds of people exist and certainly some groups of voters will believe they exist more than they do but I imagine most people accurately understand that the middle ground would be most likely.
It's a good question to ask. I suspect that almost everyone read "Christian" into this, even with the statement "person of faith."
I'd be curious if age made any difference here. To me, as a Millennial evangelical, the insistence that a President identify as Christian regardless of demonstrating any further commitment to Christian belief or to the church, comes across as very Mainline Boomer (or older -- my WW2-gen grandparents thought this way more strongly than my parents). Not that it's even bad; on balance it's probably good, but it's so far off from my ways of thinking that I can't really relate to it.
It has something to do with a presupposition of cultural Christianity; that someone who doesn't at least pay lip service to Christianity is "other", and by this standard no major party Presidential candidate of recent history has really been "other" because all of them paid the lip service. It was against this cultural backdrop that liberal Christianity thrived, and it's interesting how many of our Presidents openly associated with liberal forms of Christianity, almost from the beginning of this republic but right through to Obama.
At least part of the difference, from what I can tell, is that something like Masterpiece Cakeshop was inconceivable in those days, and from where I'm sitting, there is no daylight between the more ostensibly pious Democrats and the more secular ones on issues of religious freedom like that. So what difference does the ostensible piety make?
The statements made by Erika Kirk and President Trump at the Charlie Kirk memorial would seem to provide an opportunity to present some survey items that could elicit interesting and useful information about how respondents understand what it means to be (identify as) a Christian and about how respondents identify politicians’ religiosity. Just to give some idea of what I have in mind:
Survey 1 at time t:
Are you familiar with the following texts: [present several, including this part of the Sermon on the Mount]
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you … Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
Later in Survey 1, present items with unattributed versions of remarks by Erika Kirk and President Trump at the Charlie Kirk memorial:
Widow of murdered man: “My husband wanted to save young men just like the one who took his life. … our Savior said, "Father, forgive them for they not know what they do." That man, that young man, I forgive him. I forgive him, because … it was what Christ did, and is what my husband would do. The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love, and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.”
The statement directly above expresses a defining (central? essential? characteristic?) Christian attitude.
SA A NAND D SD
Admirer of murdered man: “Your husband did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with your husband. I hate my opponent, and I don't want the best for them. … I can’t stand my opponent.”
This statement directly above expresses a defining (central? essential? characteristic?) Christian attitude.
SA A NAND D SD
Survey 2 at time t+, same as Survey 1 at time t, but with the quotes attributed to the relevant individuals:
Are you familiar with the following texts: [present several, including this part of the Sermon on the Mount] …
Erika Kirk: “My husband, Charlie, he wanted to save young men just like the one who took his life. … our Savior said, "Father, forgive them for they not know what they do." That man, that young man, I forgive him. I forgive him, because … it was what Christ did, and is what Charlie would do. The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the gospel is love, and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.” [Source: https://www.rev.com/transcripts/erika-kirk-speaks-at-memorial]
This statement by Erika Kirk expresses a defining (central? essential? characteristic?) Christian attitude.
SA A NAND D SD
President Trump: “[Charlie Kirk] did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent, and I don't want the best for them. … I can’t stand my opponent.” [Source: https://www.rev.com/transcripts/trump-speaks-at-kirk-memorial]
This statement by President Trump expresses a defining (central? essential? characteristic?) Christian attitude.
SA A NAND D SD
I don’t know if it would be feasible to survey the same group twice and get useful results. If months separated the two surveys, respondents might well forget they’d taken the first survey.
One might also omit the Bible quotes in other versions of the survey.
It may be, however, that there is enough data in surveys already done (e.g., the Liggonier surveys) to answer any implicated questions and thus that these items would add little if anything about the attitudes of those who identify as Christians.
When I hear the phrase “religious extremist”, what comes to mind is myself, as it means “more extreme than whoever is doing the labeling”.
Excellent stuff.
Will we ever elect an atheist? Does anybody really truly believe that Trump really believes in a God other than himself?
I think that Hemant Mehta (the friendly atheist) has a long-standing theory that people will elect an atheist when they like the rest of the person.