Religion answers the non-scientific questions of morality and meaning. The Democratic and Republican parties are the largest religious groups in America.
However, looking at these graphs, Evangelical Protestants seem to be the second most influential group being almost a synonym for Conservative. Is this because of their high attendance/commitment rates as compared to the other religious groups?
As the Republican Party backs away from it's pro-life position, Evangelicals (and Conservatives) still hold to it fairly strongly - an interesting difference that perhaps shows all religious influence isn't completely gone from American society at large.
I agree but in politics in America we have a binary choice and there are no pro life democrats in congress. None. so to me the fact conservative and evangelical basically overlap completely is not surprising. I fact I think since the elections of Clinton , Ryan can correct me if I’m wrong but 80% of evangelicals voted republican in the presidential elections so this is not a Donald Trump effect. In the UK where there are more parties to choose from I bet there is a different mix. If the Republican Party continues to abandon pro life policy as long as the democrats are more voraciously pro abortion I don’t see voting changing. If the democrats moved more center again like in the Clinton years I think voting would change.
You did not include in the analysis the proportions of each religious group that identify as politically liberal, moderate, or conservative. In particular, what portion of those identifying as evangelical also identify as politically liberal? I'm guessing the percentage is relatively small. By omitting this mix variable, one might get the idea that there could be significant political diversity among evangelicals but without the mix data, my gut says this is unlikely.
Yes, but that’s basically a tautology. The label “Conservative” is essentially defined by how people answer questions about abortion, affirming trans kids, and gay marriage. The interesting finding isn’t that ideology is correlated to how people answer ideological questions. Rather, it is that ideology is correlated with religion.
The other way to look at this would be to classify the different forms of religion as brands that consumers select. Each brand attracts different consumers. That's why the two books cited in the open, published about 20 years ago, had a data base where church affiliation distributed much differently than it does today. Liberals in Southern Baptist congregations may still hold progressive views, but there aren't a lot of them in the pews on any random Sunday morning. Attrition and reaffiliation is not random. As a statistical point, one that takes a lot of discussion in my medical world, there are times when presenting numbers as absolute values offers a more accurate picture than tabulating percentages. While these surveys sample a lot of people, Ryan's yeoman's effort to create relationships between questions is not inherent to the survey whose questions and responses are more atomized.
No one can be a Catholic and approve of abortion in any form. Why, because Catholicism teaches that the individual is created at conception and is destined for eternity with God. So interfering with this is overwriting the will of God.
Now most people don’t agree with this so they approve of abortion. People identify with a religion based on emotional reasons not rational ones.
Truth -> religion -> culture -> politics -> events;
Truth -> geography-> culture- politics;
Truth -> universe -> science -> culture -> politics;
Truth -> life -> morals -> -< culture -> politics.
So religion, geography, science and morals lead to culture which leads to politics. These nuances will never be captured in any survey.
Great as always Ryan. As always, look for the incentives. Who benefits from a sharply divided country? As well as political races to be won with increasingly simple rhetoric there's a lot of money to be made in the media and elsewhere by having two well defined camps fighting each other. Not to mention that it's a distraction from any possibility of coming together to fight even broadly agreed social issues such as healthcare or income inequality.
I also sound like a stuck record but I think what's happening in the US under Trump at the moment will drive the majority of young people away from the Conservative movement and since conservatives are seen as religious and liberals as not I think that can only speed up the rate of religious decline in much of the US.
What really concerns me however is what happens when there's no longer enough people voting conservative to hold national power. We're already seeing different parts of the country having very different laws and I think this is both set to continue and become much more polarised.
In recent years we've seen extremist people on the right (white christian nationalists, etc) be much more likely to use violence that those on the left. If there is a big enough backlash to what the current administration is doing to keep conservatives out of many major forms of political power for some time my fear is that the more radical conservative / religious groups will withdraw into themselves and become increasingly dangerous.
Amid the many divides that create the culture wars that electoral candidates and media algorithms exploit, there is also a fair amount of commonality. Think of local sports teams that divide geographically but not ideologically. There are places, including my home state and my synagogue, where we don't go attacking each other.
One of the tragedies of linkage of religion and politics has been the sacrifice of commonality. While Republicans have traditionally promoted individual responsibilty, as does the Moral Majority and my left-of-center Judaism, it is those churches of all political orientations, which sponsor food for the needy, clothing drives, or make their church buildings available to AA Meetings. Once those churches shut down for lack of membership, as many have, vulnerable people who received assistance as a voluntary communal project, lose a portion of their safety net and the church members lose a portion of their divine mission.
I haven’t yet looked at the graphs as carefully as I should, but here’s a question: Let’s suppose there is a conservative ideology and that religious elements are an essential part of that ideology. In other words, conservatives use religious language and metaphors to explain their conservative worldview. In this case, the distinction between politics and religion would be somewhat artificial, wouldn’t it? What’s driving the conservative-liberal divide isn’t exactly politics or religion, but different responses to social change. Liberals are comfortable with these changes and conservatives are not. Liberals explain their embrace of social change with an ideology that focuses on “progress”, while conservatives explain their opposition to change with an ideology that focuses on “nature,” “tradition” and which is shaped by religious language/metaphor. This is just a question, but wouldn’t it be better to place the liberal-conservative divide in an even bigger framework that can explain why politics and religion are moving together?
The data make the case that "politics matters more than religion," which begs the question: "Now what?"
Is there an alternative? One possibility is a commitment to continuous improvement, supported by the application of proven quality management methods and tools. This approach could help narrow polarization by shifting the focus away from ideological purity and toward practical outcomes. Excellent quality results from doing the right things, right.
Quality management is fundamentally about reducing variation from the ideal. Products and services exist to meet needs, and the ideal is that all needs are met. The more needs that are met, the less harm unmet needs cause. Quality, therefore, either gets better or it gets worse—it is never static. This concept is formalized in the Taguchi Loss Function, which shows that any deviation from the ideal results in individual and societal loss.
Citizenship. The stated aim of the American system of government is to work together to achieve “a more perfect Union.” That language itself implies continuous improvement rather than ideological finality.
Christianity. In a biblical context, perfection is often described as a state in which all needs are met—the Garden of Eden being a common example. God is love, and love is an action: willing the good of others. Business owners and employees typically strive to provide the best products and services possible, yet often fail to recognize the connection between this impulse and Christian ethics.
A focus on continuous improvement—specifically, reducing variation from the ideal—offers a different framework for addressing polarization.
Take abortion as an example. It may not be possible to eliminate abortions entirely, but it is always possible to take actions that continually reduce the conditions that lead to the termination of a pregnancy. This reframes the issue away from absolute ideological victory and toward measurable, shared progress.
Additional context: A post on the topic: W. Edwards Deming — A Quality Paradox
Maybe it's better to have the lines of battle defined by politics instead of religion. Ordinary people don't create divisions. Rulers create divisions to justify their battles, which are always genetic at base. Sometimes tribe vs tribe, sometimes between members of the same ruling family. Cain vs Abel.
For thousands of years these genetic battles were labeled as religious. Christian vs Muslim, Protestant vs Catholic, Eastern Catholic vs Western Catholic, Hindu vs Muslim.
When the battles are labeled by the inherently less important and more changeable political labels, ordinary people can see past the label and ignore the rulers.
We can see the flips WITHIN ONE GENERATION.
R was open borders, now D is open borders. R was defund police, now D is defund police. These flips are glaringly obvious and glaringly superficial. Religious labels are more meaningful and more permanent, so they're harder to dismiss.
Another interesting article. It's pretty easy to tell that ideology is more important than theology by the way many "evangelicals" have tossed aside what they would have said was core values to support the current iteration of the Republican party. You have people like Daved French who are now nomads in their own party.
I talked about that on the Holy Post last week. Folks like French just can't hang around those spaces anymore. And I totally get it. Being verbally accosted dozens of times a day does a number on your psyche.
Religion answers the non-scientific questions of morality and meaning. The Democratic and Republican parties are the largest religious groups in America.
However, looking at these graphs, Evangelical Protestants seem to be the second most influential group being almost a synonym for Conservative. Is this because of their high attendance/commitment rates as compared to the other religious groups?
As the Republican Party backs away from it's pro-life position, Evangelicals (and Conservatives) still hold to it fairly strongly - an interesting difference that perhaps shows all religious influence isn't completely gone from American society at large.
I agree but in politics in America we have a binary choice and there are no pro life democrats in congress. None. so to me the fact conservative and evangelical basically overlap completely is not surprising. I fact I think since the elections of Clinton , Ryan can correct me if I’m wrong but 80% of evangelicals voted republican in the presidential elections so this is not a Donald Trump effect. In the UK where there are more parties to choose from I bet there is a different mix. If the Republican Party continues to abandon pro life policy as long as the democrats are more voraciously pro abortion I don’t see voting changing. If the democrats moved more center again like in the Clinton years I think voting would change.
You did not include in the analysis the proportions of each religious group that identify as politically liberal, moderate, or conservative. In particular, what portion of those identifying as evangelical also identify as politically liberal? I'm guessing the percentage is relatively small. By omitting this mix variable, one might get the idea that there could be significant political diversity among evangelicals but without the mix data, my gut says this is unlikely.
https://ibb.co/wr7n2mv6
Yes, but that’s basically a tautology. The label “Conservative” is essentially defined by how people answer questions about abortion, affirming trans kids, and gay marriage. The interesting finding isn’t that ideology is correlated to how people answer ideological questions. Rather, it is that ideology is correlated with religion.
The other way to look at this would be to classify the different forms of religion as brands that consumers select. Each brand attracts different consumers. That's why the two books cited in the open, published about 20 years ago, had a data base where church affiliation distributed much differently than it does today. Liberals in Southern Baptist congregations may still hold progressive views, but there aren't a lot of them in the pews on any random Sunday morning. Attrition and reaffiliation is not random. As a statistical point, one that takes a lot of discussion in my medical world, there are times when presenting numbers as absolute values offers a more accurate picture than tabulating percentages. While these surveys sample a lot of people, Ryan's yeoman's effort to create relationships between questions is not inherent to the survey whose questions and responses are more atomized.
A great point here, "Attrition and reaffiliation is not random."
I say this often - religion is voluntary. We can't forget that.
This is why surveys are misleading,
No one can be a Catholic and approve of abortion in any form. Why, because Catholicism teaches that the individual is created at conception and is destined for eternity with God. So interfering with this is overwriting the will of God.
Now most people don’t agree with this so they approve of abortion. People identify with a religion based on emotional reasons not rational ones.
Truth -> religion -> culture -> politics -> events;
Truth -> geography-> culture- politics;
Truth -> universe -> science -> culture -> politics;
Truth -> life -> morals -> -< culture -> politics.
So religion, geography, science and morals lead to culture which leads to politics. These nuances will never be captured in any survey.
"No one can be a Catholic and approve of abortion in any form"
Well, about 40 million American Catholics would disagree with you on this.
I don't make value judgements in my work. If you say you are Catholic, that's good enough for me.
“ If you say you are Catholic, that's good enough for me.”
That doesn’t make one a Catholic.
I’ve been to Mass at various Catholic parishes over the years and have heard the exaltation to pray for the end of abortion hundreds of times.
What's the definition of a Catholic?
Mine is
Q: What's your present religious affiliation, if any?
A: Catholic.
It is possible to be pro-choice and pray for the end of abortion, those don’t need to be mutually exclusive.
Great as always Ryan. As always, look for the incentives. Who benefits from a sharply divided country? As well as political races to be won with increasingly simple rhetoric there's a lot of money to be made in the media and elsewhere by having two well defined camps fighting each other. Not to mention that it's a distraction from any possibility of coming together to fight even broadly agreed social issues such as healthcare or income inequality.
I also sound like a stuck record but I think what's happening in the US under Trump at the moment will drive the majority of young people away from the Conservative movement and since conservatives are seen as religious and liberals as not I think that can only speed up the rate of religious decline in much of the US.
What really concerns me however is what happens when there's no longer enough people voting conservative to hold national power. We're already seeing different parts of the country having very different laws and I think this is both set to continue and become much more polarised.
In recent years we've seen extremist people on the right (white christian nationalists, etc) be much more likely to use violence that those on the left. If there is a big enough backlash to what the current administration is doing to keep conservatives out of many major forms of political power for some time my fear is that the more radical conservative / religious groups will withdraw into themselves and become increasingly dangerous.
Amid the many divides that create the culture wars that electoral candidates and media algorithms exploit, there is also a fair amount of commonality. Think of local sports teams that divide geographically but not ideologically. There are places, including my home state and my synagogue, where we don't go attacking each other.
One of the tragedies of linkage of religion and politics has been the sacrifice of commonality. While Republicans have traditionally promoted individual responsibilty, as does the Moral Majority and my left-of-center Judaism, it is those churches of all political orientations, which sponsor food for the needy, clothing drives, or make their church buildings available to AA Meetings. Once those churches shut down for lack of membership, as many have, vulnerable people who received assistance as a voluntary communal project, lose a portion of their safety net and the church members lose a portion of their divine mission.
I haven’t yet looked at the graphs as carefully as I should, but here’s a question: Let’s suppose there is a conservative ideology and that religious elements are an essential part of that ideology. In other words, conservatives use religious language and metaphors to explain their conservative worldview. In this case, the distinction between politics and religion would be somewhat artificial, wouldn’t it? What’s driving the conservative-liberal divide isn’t exactly politics or religion, but different responses to social change. Liberals are comfortable with these changes and conservatives are not. Liberals explain their embrace of social change with an ideology that focuses on “progress”, while conservatives explain their opposition to change with an ideology that focuses on “nature,” “tradition” and which is shaped by religious language/metaphor. This is just a question, but wouldn’t it be better to place the liberal-conservative divide in an even bigger framework that can explain why politics and religion are moving together?
"What’s driving the conservative-liberal divide isn’t exactly politics or religion, but different responses to social change."
I wrote about this:
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/does-religious-affiliation-make-someone
The data make the case that "politics matters more than religion," which begs the question: "Now what?"
Is there an alternative? One possibility is a commitment to continuous improvement, supported by the application of proven quality management methods and tools. This approach could help narrow polarization by shifting the focus away from ideological purity and toward practical outcomes. Excellent quality results from doing the right things, right.
Quality management is fundamentally about reducing variation from the ideal. Products and services exist to meet needs, and the ideal is that all needs are met. The more needs that are met, the less harm unmet needs cause. Quality, therefore, either gets better or it gets worse—it is never static. This concept is formalized in the Taguchi Loss Function, which shows that any deviation from the ideal results in individual and societal loss.
Citizenship. The stated aim of the American system of government is to work together to achieve “a more perfect Union.” That language itself implies continuous improvement rather than ideological finality.
Christianity. In a biblical context, perfection is often described as a state in which all needs are met—the Garden of Eden being a common example. God is love, and love is an action: willing the good of others. Business owners and employees typically strive to provide the best products and services possible, yet often fail to recognize the connection between this impulse and Christian ethics.
A focus on continuous improvement—specifically, reducing variation from the ideal—offers a different framework for addressing polarization.
Take abortion as an example. It may not be possible to eliminate abortions entirely, but it is always possible to take actions that continually reduce the conditions that lead to the termination of a pregnancy. This reframes the issue away from absolute ideological victory and toward measurable, shared progress.
Additional context: A post on the topic: W. Edwards Deming — A Quality Paradox
https://timjclark.substack.com/p/w-edwards-deming-a-quality-paradox
Maybe it's better to have the lines of battle defined by politics instead of religion. Ordinary people don't create divisions. Rulers create divisions to justify their battles, which are always genetic at base. Sometimes tribe vs tribe, sometimes between members of the same ruling family. Cain vs Abel.
For thousands of years these genetic battles were labeled as religious. Christian vs Muslim, Protestant vs Catholic, Eastern Catholic vs Western Catholic, Hindu vs Muslim.
When the battles are labeled by the inherently less important and more changeable political labels, ordinary people can see past the label and ignore the rulers.
We can see the flips WITHIN ONE GENERATION.
R was open borders, now D is open borders. R was defund police, now D is defund police. These flips are glaringly obvious and glaringly superficial. Religious labels are more meaningful and more permanent, so they're harder to dismiss.
"God is on our side" is probably not the best rhetoric if we want to avoid brutal wars, amirite?
Another interesting article. It's pretty easy to tell that ideology is more important than theology by the way many "evangelicals" have tossed aside what they would have said was core values to support the current iteration of the Republican party. You have people like Daved French who are now nomads in their own party.
I talked about that on the Holy Post last week. Folks like French just can't hang around those spaces anymore. And I totally get it. Being verbally accosted dozens of times a day does a number on your psyche.