Just remember that the same people who think I’m irrational for being a Christian also believe women have penises. Educated Democrats have a religion that includes sacred texts (Gender Trouble, The Second Sex, The Social Contract, One Dimensional Man) and unfalsifiable metaphysical claims. Their beliefs are all also deeply against human nature, which is why they defund the police, dumb down education, and open the borders. When you reject Christianity you don’t become more rational but less rational.
“When you reject Christianity you don’t become more rational but less rational.”
The irrationality has always lain in the embrace of imperial conceptions of spirituality—“if this person’s faith is different than mine, I have license to denigrate/ridicule/ostracize/kill them”—over communitarian conceptions of it: “If this person treats the people of my community decently, then I should treat them decently, whatever their faith happens to be.” Whatever people’s faith is, (and atheism/agnosticism/etc. is really just another form of faith)—once they switch from the communitarian mode of the neighbor over to the imperial mode of the conqueror/crusader, they begin to treat others *indecently*. And whether you treat others decently, and whether they treat you decently in return, is really all that matters, because mutual decency is the basis for rational, organic community.
> "“if this person’s faith is different than mine, I have license to denigrate/ridicule/ostracize/kill them"
That has always been a much bigger problem for secular worldviews than for Christianity.
- The Great Awokening. The Christian-dominated USA had freedom of speech and public debate. Wokism replaced it with shame scorn, and ostracism for dissenters.
- The French Revolution began with Enlightenment principles like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and they were in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. But in the leftist phase, those were both taken away as both enemies and friends of the revolution were executed by the guillotine.
It has been a problem for nearly every religion (including secularist ones) because every religion has had adherents that have embraced the Imperial way of conceiving of their faith, and because the tendency to drift towards Imperial thinking is a universal human flaw that we must constantly fight against.
Millions died in 'holy wars' waged in the name of Christianity and Islam (see: crusades) in the medieval era and millions died in the name of Communist atheism (or the fight to vanquish it) in the 20th century. The common element to all of the self-destructive violence was the combatants' belief that those that did not share their faith were deserving of ostracism, disrespect and death--that they were 'enemies' to be defeated or 'heretics' to be converted, rather than just neighbors with different traditions and different gods watching over them, who were no less deserving of being treated decently than anyone else.
Go find Saudi Arabia on a map. Then draw a line from it to Turkey. Every nation on that line - such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, etc. - was a nation that peacefully converted to Christianity but then became conquered by Muslims. For those who are Gen X but who did not study history, Muslim conquest is the reason why Istanbul was Constantinople.
Then draw a second line running through North Africa and into Spain, including Egypt, Libya, and Algeria, and realize the same conquest happened there.
The Crusades were a desperate long-shot attempt to reclaim territory from conquerers. It would like saying that the US was violent in WW2 because they invaded France.
That is not how the crusaders saw the crusades, and the American analogy makes no sense—the crusades took place around *400 years* after the Muslim conquests, and had as much to do with ambitions about land and papal politics than reconquering the kingdom of Christ in the name of ‘peace’. WWII took place in the span of less than a full generation. Furthermore, France was occupied by Nazi Germany; the U.S. invaded as an ally—whereas the Crusaders were invading lands where people had lived for *generations* under Muslim rule.
But you’re ignoring more than that, namely that Jordan and Syria were not converted ‘peacefully’, they were gradually conquered by the Romans, another empire crusading in the name of ‘the faith’. (Constantinople, btw, only became Constantinople after the Ottomans got there in the 15th century, not after the Muslim conquest)
The Muslim conquests, the Roman imperium’s advance of Christianity by the sword, and the crusades where both killed millions in the name of spreading their faith, were all part of the same drive towards violence that happens when faith becomes a pretext to mistreat your neighbor, to force him to think as you do, rather than agreeing to welcome him to your community, despite whatever differences of tradition you have. (And, again, this applies to the faith of the secularist, too)
Th crusaders saw it exactly the same way the cold warriors saw it: an evil empire conquered nations and they needed to be defeated. They were both right.
Europe was weak in the early Middle Ages. That’s why it wasn’t until the 12th century that the reconquest of Spain happened. It wasn’t like they didn’t care that Muslims conquered Spain until they whipped themselves up into some elite-conjured religious fervor.
And speaking as a Christian: it remains true today. Watch this TikTok.
We went to church last Sunday with our son and family.
The sermon was on feeling joy. Much of the time was spent singing. There was NO ranting about political issues or other peoples' sins. The church was in a small conservative community. For example one neighbor has offered to shovel snow from our family's driveway using his Kubota.....free of charge. When our pregnant daughter-in-law goes to the post office, she never has to carry large packages herself...instead people open doors for her and men carry her packages.
And there was a lot of emphasis in that church on charitable giving. The church was filling baskets of food for those in need. One woman is so poor that she doesn't have a stove, so people in the church are trying to get one for her....including our son.
And before church started, nobody was sitting in the pews. Everybody was up, moving around, talking with each other, laughing. We were new there, and had LOTS of introductions. One of the first things the pastor said when he got everyone (finally) seated was "find someone who you didn't come to church with today in your car and welcome them."
Studies show that conservatives give a higher percent of their incomes to charities than do liberals.
What is there about our church experience last week that does not fit with ideals of the Democratic Party?
I grew up a secular Jew, and arrived in the US very much aligned with progressive politics of the mid-late 90s. Since volunteering was something drilled into me since childhood, I kept seeking out ways to volunteer in the US. Then I started noticing how nearly all the people who volunteered with me in various places were religious people. That was my first break with progressives - people should be measured by their actions, not what they profess. I pretty much don’t care what someone argues politically, I measure them for their deeds. I just don’t care who you vote for if you’re a good person.
I think “elite Democrats” needs to be really emphasized here. If you actually separate the coalition, you find a huge and loyal Democratic bloc, especially Black Democrats (and often Hispanic Democrats), that’s markedly more religious than white college-educated Democrats. For example, Pew finds 75% of Black Democrats say they believe in God with absolute certainty, versus 29% of White Democrats.
So the issue isn’t “Democrats vs. religion” in general; it’s which Democrats are setting the party’s cultural tone and public signals. The party doesn’t have to go find faith voters somewhere else, it already has them inside its own coalition. The real question is why those voices seem underrepresented in the areas that shape messaging and agenda-setting.
When Harris' policy advisors told her the 2024 Al Smith dinner wasn't worth her time and she sent a SNL skit on video it was clear that no one at the level of Democratic policy had any knowledge of religion.
Being accepting of different faiths and beliefs is a fundamental liberal value.
What really impressed me though and led to not only acceptance but an admiration for those who hold religious beliefs was seeing the work of Christian organisations in places where there were no other hospitals or health clinics other than the ones the Christians had set up. Places with not only little health care but no real functioning government.
The gov't (under Biden) using Southern Poverty Law Center reports to track Catholics and the FBI Richmond Memo under C. Ray demonstrate an anti-religious bias that has seeped into general Democratic attitudes to--at least--Catholics.
Tell a liberal friend you are a Catholic and that's what they remember...
When the first thing out of one's mouth or written word is to denigrate another's belief, to me it is obvious. Although it could be, only the more public ones have such beliefs.
That may very well be true. I know few. But as I pointed out, it is the vocal ones I accuse. I asked numerous people who publicly denigrate other’s faiths what theirs is, faith or belief, and they won’t answer. Why is that? If you’re only argument is well your side sucks, that is no answer and certainly not an intelligent one.
I will add, that anyone who claims to be so brilliant to make such a declaration when the most intelligent scientist can’t, just proves how unqualified they are to make such a declaration.The answer is simple, explain your own beliefs, leave others to their own beliefs with no judgement.
I use the literal definition. Atheist just means a non-believer. Those who go further and assert that there is no God are, to me, anti-theists. They're certainly entitled to that view, but I distinguish it from atheism in the sense that I don't think atheists are necessarily anti-theists.
As an atheist and one who believes in a woman's right to choose, I have no problem with atheist Democrats. What does chap my hide is anyone who claims to be a Christian who supports abortion. The hypocrisy is particularly strong with Cafeteria Catholics like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Either you buy into the mumbo jumbo as the true word of God or you're just posing.
“On the other side of the debate, a number of religious groups, including the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the two largest American Jewish movements – Reform and Conservative Judaism – favor a woman’s right to have an abortion with few or no exceptions.
Many of the nation’s largest mainline Protestant denominations – including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Methodists – also support abortion rights, although several of these churches temper this support with the call for some limits on when a woman can terminate her pregnancy. For instance, while the Episcopal Church opposes statutory limits on abortion, it teaches that “it should be used only in extreme situations.”
“And for the National Baptist Convention, a historically black Protestant denomination in the U.S., church policy is to allow each individual congregation to determine its views on abortion.”
Thank you Lisa, for taking the time to research this! I must admit to surprise about the Methodist church as I was raised a Methodist, though I have not attended a Methodist service since before Roe. This has been quite an eye-opener.
Lisa was not precise in the names of the denominations she cited.. The United Methodist Church national organization is pro choice. But there are thousands of Methodist churches which have left the United Methodist organization over this and other sexual issues. And the Church of Christ is one of the very most conservative churches. Very much different than the United Church of Christ, which is among the most liberal. I understand the confusion. It is very confusing. And within these large organizations there are differences of opinion on these issues. But the generalizations are at least somewhat true.
Remember, remember, What "chaps my hide" (new to me, but you've got my vote) is when people decide they can determine the proper way for individual people to work through difficult questions that create for them serious conflicts of values. Pelosi and Biden are Catholics who have made a commitment to the principle of American government, including, as they see it, such values as freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. I believe both people -- along with many other Catholics and Christians -- see the question facing them as whether their beliefs should limit the beliefs and freedoms of others, not whether they "support abortion," which, if I recall, both have explicitly stated they do not.
When JFK ran for president he was faced with a strong anti-Catholic tradition in the American electorate. His opponents claimed that as president he would necessarily be beholden to the Pope and Church first and the Constitution second. He was eloquent in asserting that this was a false position, and that in his role as defender of the Constitution he would be faithful to the Constitution and in his role as a Catholic individual he would be faithful to the Church. This became a standard for the Democratic Party, resonating with the long-established tradition of the separation of Church and State. Had he not made this position a standard acceptable to a broad range of people, including many who did not vote for him but acknowledged their satisfaction with his position in this respect, no Catholic could have legitimately served as president without violating their oath or faith, nor, more broadly, could any person of strong religious conviction. (I am old enough to remember the critical nature of this issue in 1960 and to have admired the way JFK confronted it.)
You are, of course, free to judge others as you wish -- we all are. But I think to reduce the moral lives of individuals to black-and-white judgments we pass on complex problems of ethics and belief that they confront is to reduce our own humanity and political compassion.
Bob, "chaps my hide" could be a phrase that only us boomers recall. :-)
I'm old enough to remember JFK, though I was young and did not know of the Protestant reservations about his supposed subservience to the Pope until much later.
I was picking on Cafeteria Catholics in particular because under their doctrine, the Pope is relaying the word of God directly, so there is little room for argument in their sphere. If you truly believe in God and you also believe that the Pope is relaying his word, then how can you be a true Catholic and ignore the parts you don't like? Hence the term Cafeteria Catholics.
As far as Pelosi, I remembered her supporting the pro-choice movement for as long as I've been aware of her, but my memory isn't what it once was, so I Googled it to be sure and according to Google, "Yes, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been a long-time and vocal supporter of abortion rights and access to reproductive healthcare. Her public stance and legislative actions have consistently aligned with a 'pro-choice' position."
As far as Biden, the return was, "President Joe Biden has consistently expressed support for abortion rights and a woman's right to choose since running for president in 2020, a shift from his earlier, more moderate stance as a senator. He has made defending and expanding abortion access a cornerstone of his administration and campaign, particularly following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022." That sounds to me like he never spoke against abortion in order to avoid exposure of hypocrisy, but when Roe was struck down, his true colors came out.
Who knows, maybe they paid indulgences and think that their consciences are clear, but it seems to me that one cannot proclaim belief in God and ignore His will without eternal damnation. As many of the Protestants I know will tell you, asking for salvation in the name of Jesus Christ only works if you repent AND reform. These black and white judgments are an integral part of their creed. Can they show up for confession every week and expect absolution for the same sin? Having never been a Catholic, maybe I'm missing something...
I have little respect for either party, but I would never fault atheist/agnostic Democrats for being pro-choice and I stand with them on that issue. Likewise, I would never fault Democrats for going against their party on choice on religious grounds, even though I stand against them on that issue.
I've tried very hard to logically organize my own beliefs and maybe I am too judgmental, but for me, the hypocrisy of claiming to be a Christian who supports abortion is a breach of trust. All of us have weak moments where we act against our own beliefs and later regret it, but this is not a simple moment of weakness.
Remember x 2, The wonders of the Internet (which has so helped us reach our present utopian society) reveal to me that "chaps my hide" dates from the 19th century. I may be an early Boomer, but I don't go back that far! I guess the saying just ducked away from me when I looked until now.
I think you will find that the Catholic Church's view of the authority of the Pope is not nearly as simple or absolute as your describe. The "doctrine of papal infallibility" was actually promulgated only in 1870 (the date of Vatican I) and it is restricted to a narrow range of statements the Pope makes. Although the teachings of those statements are binding on members of the church, we've seen many time, most notably during the papacies of John XXIII and Francis that even within the church hierarchies there is pushback and independent thinking in the wake of an ex cathedra statement -- Catholic thinkers include some of the most independent and sophisticated minds in Western religious traditions. In practice there is plenty of room for argument, and it is very rare for the church to expel lay members for failing to follow without question doctrine that conflicts with their individual consciences. (This is all part of the Counter-Reformation positioning of the Church since it was forced to respond to the critiques of Luther and later members of the Reformation movement.)
Biden's position has consistently been that he is personally opposed to abortion because of his belief that "life" begins at conception, but that he cannot use the civic authority of his political position to enforce a religious belief on those who do not share it. I believe Pelosi has made similar statements (and I'd add that what you Googled about her in no way conflicts with the position I've described for Biden -- Pelosi has been more outspoken over her career, but the principles seem to me the same). There are indeed Catholics who believe both politicians should be denied the Eucharist and blessings of the Church, but they have not prevailed within the Church, which is, in fact, a far more liberal institution since Vatican II. If the Catholic Church respects cases of the individual responding to tensions between their ethical instincts and Church doctrine, I think it's a little strange for non-Catholics such as you and me to pass judgment on those people as hypocrites and to use denigrating terms like "Cafeteria Catholics" to refer to them. They and the leaders of the Church they belong to work within understandings of Faith; your critique is applying the most simplistic sort of rule by Reason and logic -- the problems and solutions of Faith are different from those of Reason and logic, and clearly your "black-and-white" reductionist view of what obedience to God means for Catholics is not the view adopted by the Church itself.
This isn't to deny that political figures like Biden and Pelosi may well act from mixed motives, some of which concern conscience and duty and others of which concern personal political success. Not being religious I don't have experience with how people negotiate these conflicts of motive, but I know that I so routinely fail to live up to what I regard as self-defining ethical commitments that I would hesitate to pass any judgment. There will always, of course, be people and politicians who are, in fact, simply ethically challenged hypocrites. I believe we have an unusually abundant array of both religious and secular examples today.
I agree entirely with your statement, "I would never fault Democrats for going against their party on choice on religious grounds, even though I stand against them on that issue." I would go further and say that I would not fault a Democrat who could not in good conscience support pro-choice legislation because of a conviction that human life begins at conception even without a religious concept of the soul. (I would, however, be unlikely to vote for them if there were a pro-choice alternative.)
Bob, I thank you for your in-depth and courteous response! Civil discourse seems to be dying out, so your response and Lisa's response below have been a most pleasant, as well as educational surprise.
I wish you a Merry Christmas, be it secular or otherwise. This year is a quiet one for me because all six of the delightful young terrorists I call grandchildren are waking up to Christmas morning at their other grandparents' homes. However, it's our turn next year, so I always have something to look forward to. :-)
Christian is no longer a word with any specific meaning. That's why many no longer use the title. I get tired of explaining the difference between all the "Christians" in the world. Any politician who says they can separate their most deeply held personal beliefs from their political beliefs is a charlatan and a liar. Those who believe it can be done, are just as bad. How many of those who are Islamic in faith do you see saying such stupid and ridiculous things? None. The only thing more ridiculous are the Dems, like the weak in MN, who let words like racist scare the shit out of them. No Gov Walz, no "man" would have such phobias. Especially when it comes to taking the actions necessary to correct wrongs.
It seems to me that the part of the cult with the most clout, but mentioned the least, are the NGOs. I've heard a lot more bad about them than good. Maybe it's time to put the critical light on them. I think Trump is going in the right direction cutting off the money from the government.
But also the fact that Christianity, Biblical Christianity, has it's largest growth under the most oppression.
The problem is that Gay Marriage is destroying the Democratic Party. After Obergfell, a prominent gay-rights advocate stated in interview with the NY Times and WaPo that the gay rights movement would not repeat the mistake of the abortion rights movement. They would refuse to accept any principled disagreement with gay rights and, instead, ostracize anyone who disagreed. The other interest groups in the Democratic coalition took notice. Thus, the Democrats predicament. So, if Democrats want any chance at a majority, they must abandon the LGBTQ+ approach to society and actually tolerate those who oppose the LGBTQ+ agenda.
I don't think gay marriage hurt them, but the trans movement sure has. The gay organizations have embraced the trans movement largely because it ensures ongoing financing. At the grass roots level, there isn't much love among the gays (and especially among the lesbians) for the trans.
It didn't hurt them, directly. But Gay Marriage made Democrats intolerant. It's that intolerance on the trans issue, climate, and others that's hurting them.
Are you sure? I hear that all the time in online discourse, and it does make sense. Gender ideology is the most medically harmful form of gay conversation therapy ever invented.* But I live in a blue state and have mostly secular friends and all my gay friends are big fighters for gender ideology.
* there are also the heterosexual men who are trans, which is an entirely different problem
I'm gay, and neither wear it on my sleeve nor am afraid to say so if it's relevant, such as right now. To the extent that there's support for the gender crap among gays, it's really about not wanting the trans people to go through what gay people used to go through. But that's different than signing onto the whole deal.
And yes, I think that "gender affirming treatment" is in fact the most anti-gay thing I have seen. It's a very old trope, i.e., that gay men are really women, and lesbians are really men. I could discuss it at great length, but it comes across as pedantic and frankly, too detailed. Most people, especially the hetero majority, really don't want to think about it, and I cannot blame them at all.
The M2F (male to female) trans group has really done damage to the lesbian community by insisting on being treated as women at EVERY level. Most of the lesbians I have known are not one bit amused. From my perspective, I was amused when they added the B in LGB, because (at the time) I said that no one cares about the B except when it involves the L or the G.
Then came the Q, which pissed me off. Then the T, which pissed me off more. So now it's LGBTQIA+, a grab bag for ... well, everything? Ugh. It's embarrassing. Not to mention that homo sapiens is a mammal, and mammals are sexually dimorphic, and here we have these people claiming to be for science being wholly unscientific. It goes on.
I remember online flame wars around the time of Obergefell where people would argue that being gay is a choice. I'm straight and I found that a quick, but polite way to shut them up was to ask them if back in their school days they saw a boy in their class in the next row over and they thought, "Wow, that boy is really hot, but I've decided to like girls instead." It was never a choice for me.
Trust me, way back when I sure as hell didn't want to be homosexual. In college, I went to bed with a girl twice, and after the second time, I stood in front of the mirror in my dorm room and said, out loud, "You're a faggot. Now get used to it." I was 19 and in the Midwest, where practicality rules.
It was the mid-1970s, and gay activism was a pretty big deal. I avoided it, not out of shame but out of practicality. First priority was to get an education. Second was to get a job after graduation. (It was the Rust Belt, and things looked grim that way.) Third was to find someone, and that someone was not an activist type for me.
So yeah, the whole "choice" accusation was absurd. So too, was the idea that gays "recruited." My one-liner there was that I hadn't been recruited but had enlisted. Those were the days. Now, I look at the ham-fisted trans propaganda, and am either irritated or amused, depending on my mood.
LGBTQIA+? "Non binary?" Um, I have another one-liner on that one, which is that I am every last bit as invested in "the binary" as any hetero out there. Each to their own, but keep the puberty blockers, the hormones, the pronouns, and the surgery away from minors. Period, end of paragraph, end of story.
Even if it were a choice, why the hell should anyone care? I don't know if you ever got married, but if you had, does that somehow make my marriage any less valuable to me? Sometimes I think that the only thing separating us from monkey's flinging shit at each other is that we have less hair to protect us from incoming turds.
As far as trans issues, I really could not care less if a man wants to dress up and pretend he's a woman. It's simply none of my business. The only thing I do care about is that children be left out of it all. They'll have plenty of time to make life-changing decisions once they're adults.
BTW, I joined the Marine Corps at 17 in 1975, so we're roughly the same age. It just took me longer to wake up to reality and go back to school. :-)
I am shocked by today's post. I think it is a fallacious view of the relationship between the Democratic Party and religious Americans, principally because it substitutes a vocal faction within the Party for the whole, and reduces the Party to views only held by some within that faction. It presents a poorly analyzed notion of the elements of religion that are at issue when addressing the Democratic disconnect with rural America. I'm a Liberal and I subscribe to The Liberal Patriot because I feel aligned with its general project, so this is a deeply disappointing post.
I want to mention specifics I find problematic, but first I should probably state that I am not religious, by which I don't mean I'm agnostic -- I feel no doubt about the existence of God -- but I also would not wish to be termed an "atheist": I don't view my belief as any type of theory or creed (not an "-ism") and I do not wish that people who believe in God did not, something associated, sometimes correctly, with atheism.
Mr. Halpin's analysis rests on the political divide between "more religious" rural America and "less religious" urban America, and on three divisions of views: on trans issues, on immigration, and on helping the needy. There is, I think, no question that the urban/rural divide correlates with less/more religious self-identification. But I see no relevance of this to the polling data on immigration and helping the need. Taking in the stranger and helping the poor are fundamental values of Christianity, shared with members of other religions and ethical secularists alike. In what way is the fact that urban Democrats say they are more supportive of these values than rural Republicans a reflection of "the God gap?" This is not just a confusion of correlation and causation; it is a confusion of the basic terms of argument. It is not lack of religion that makes urban Democrats open to immigrants and social welfare programs and it is not religion that makes rural Republicans less open to them.
Mr. Halprin's column recalls sentimentally a time when secular Democrats praised the charitable attitudes and efforts of religious communities, viewing them as positive elements of American society, and claims that now Democrats decry those who are religious and claim some are white nationalists. He is equating a change in his focus on the Democratic Party coalition for a change in attitude over time. Mainstream Democrats continue to view positively the broadly constructive contributions of religious communities, just as they did in pre-Obama times, and the element of the Democratic coalition Mr. Halpin dislikes -- the "non-profits" (as if they are all alike!) and the Democratic Socialists -- have had elements that have been as antagonistic as they are now for decades. (And I would like to see Mr. Halpin's implied argument that it is wrong to claim that some religious conservatives are white nationalists; race is often a major component of the rising force of Christian nationalism. The error on the extreme Left is precisely the type of error Mr. Halpin is committing in his post: identifying a damaging element within the broad range of Christian Americans as characteristic of the whole.)
On the "hot-button" issue of trans rights I think we need more sophisticated polling. One of the commenters on this page, JMan 2819, says: " . . . the same people who think I’m irrational for being a Christian also believe women have penises." There is indeed a slice of the Democratic coalition that would assert that "women have penises," but if polling allowed us to distinguish between that claim and a claim that "trans women have penises" (which of course they do) and to say whether trans women are women in all respects or some respects, varying according to individual cases, I think we could begin to emerge from this polarized and polarizing discourse. (I'd add as a response to JMan 2819 that I think he's irrational for being a Christian, but I don't think there is any reason belief has to justify itself as "rational": it is valid as what it is, belief. When I'm with religious friends who are speaking of the strength faith gives them, I feel sorry I don't possess it.)
Mr. Halpin may justly claim that the rise of social media has increased the salience of the "very online" progressive element of the party. I have assumed the entire project of The Liberal Patriot has been to persuade the Democratic Party to work to reduce to the salience of extreme elements of the progressive left (without abandoning elements of their platform that Democrats can justly embrace on Liberal grounds of good governance). I do not see how misrepresenting the Party as a whole as precisely the element it needs to guide towards the old pragmatic and flexible meaning of Progressivism makes any contribution to the project of this site (as I understand it).
But this misses the point. There has been no "demise of religion among Democrats." Educated Democrats have converted to a different religion, and they regularly attend church services at "mostly peaceful protests," chant their Creed such as "Globalize the Intifada," and faithfully chase heretic professors that don't want to make sacred Land Acknowledgments.
Of course their attendance at the old churches has declined.
Just remember that the same people who think I’m irrational for being a Christian also believe women have penises. Educated Democrats have a religion that includes sacred texts (Gender Trouble, The Second Sex, The Social Contract, One Dimensional Man) and unfalsifiable metaphysical claims. Their beliefs are all also deeply against human nature, which is why they defund the police, dumb down education, and open the borders. When you reject Christianity you don’t become more rational but less rational.
And don't even get me started on the great secular denomination of "Climate Change"...
“When you reject Christianity you don’t become more rational but less rational.”
The irrationality has always lain in the embrace of imperial conceptions of spirituality—“if this person’s faith is different than mine, I have license to denigrate/ridicule/ostracize/kill them”—over communitarian conceptions of it: “If this person treats the people of my community decently, then I should treat them decently, whatever their faith happens to be.” Whatever people’s faith is, (and atheism/agnosticism/etc. is really just another form of faith)—once they switch from the communitarian mode of the neighbor over to the imperial mode of the conqueror/crusader, they begin to treat others *indecently*. And whether you treat others decently, and whether they treat you decently in return, is really all that matters, because mutual decency is the basis for rational, organic community.
> "“if this person’s faith is different than mine, I have license to denigrate/ridicule/ostracize/kill them"
That has always been a much bigger problem for secular worldviews than for Christianity.
- The Great Awokening. The Christian-dominated USA had freedom of speech and public debate. Wokism replaced it with shame scorn, and ostracism for dissenters.
- The French Revolution began with Enlightenment principles like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and they were in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. But in the leftist phase, those were both taken away as both enemies and friends of the revolution were executed by the guillotine.
- Communism was totalitarian
- Fascism was secular, and totalitarian
It has been a problem for nearly every religion (including secularist ones) because every religion has had adherents that have embraced the Imperial way of conceiving of their faith, and because the tendency to drift towards Imperial thinking is a universal human flaw that we must constantly fight against.
Millions died in 'holy wars' waged in the name of Christianity and Islam (see: crusades) in the medieval era and millions died in the name of Communist atheism (or the fight to vanquish it) in the 20th century. The common element to all of the self-destructive violence was the combatants' belief that those that did not share their faith were deserving of ostracism, disrespect and death--that they were 'enemies' to be defeated or 'heretics' to be converted, rather than just neighbors with different traditions and different gods watching over them, who were no less deserving of being treated decently than anyone else.
Go find Saudi Arabia on a map. Then draw a line from it to Turkey. Every nation on that line - such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, etc. - was a nation that peacefully converted to Christianity but then became conquered by Muslims. For those who are Gen X but who did not study history, Muslim conquest is the reason why Istanbul was Constantinople.
Then draw a second line running through North Africa and into Spain, including Egypt, Libya, and Algeria, and realize the same conquest happened there.
The Crusades were a desperate long-shot attempt to reclaim territory from conquerers. It would like saying that the US was violent in WW2 because they invaded France.
That is not how the crusaders saw the crusades, and the American analogy makes no sense—the crusades took place around *400 years* after the Muslim conquests, and had as much to do with ambitions about land and papal politics than reconquering the kingdom of Christ in the name of ‘peace’. WWII took place in the span of less than a full generation. Furthermore, France was occupied by Nazi Germany; the U.S. invaded as an ally—whereas the Crusaders were invading lands where people had lived for *generations* under Muslim rule.
But you’re ignoring more than that, namely that Jordan and Syria were not converted ‘peacefully’, they were gradually conquered by the Romans, another empire crusading in the name of ‘the faith’. (Constantinople, btw, only became Constantinople after the Ottomans got there in the 15th century, not after the Muslim conquest)
The Muslim conquests, the Roman imperium’s advance of Christianity by the sword, and the crusades where both killed millions in the name of spreading their faith, were all part of the same drive towards violence that happens when faith becomes a pretext to mistreat your neighbor, to force him to think as you do, rather than agreeing to welcome him to your community, despite whatever differences of tradition you have. (And, again, this applies to the faith of the secularist, too)
Th crusaders saw it exactly the same way the cold warriors saw it: an evil empire conquered nations and they needed to be defeated. They were both right.
Europe was weak in the early Middle Ages. That’s why it wasn’t until the 12th century that the reconquest of Spain happened. It wasn’t like they didn’t care that Muslims conquered Spain until they whipped themselves up into some elite-conjured religious fervor.
And speaking as a Christian: it remains true today. Watch this TikTok.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTrTkUPUh/
We went to church last Sunday with our son and family.
The sermon was on feeling joy. Much of the time was spent singing. There was NO ranting about political issues or other peoples' sins. The church was in a small conservative community. For example one neighbor has offered to shovel snow from our family's driveway using his Kubota.....free of charge. When our pregnant daughter-in-law goes to the post office, she never has to carry large packages herself...instead people open doors for her and men carry her packages.
And there was a lot of emphasis in that church on charitable giving. The church was filling baskets of food for those in need. One woman is so poor that she doesn't have a stove, so people in the church are trying to get one for her....including our son.
And before church started, nobody was sitting in the pews. Everybody was up, moving around, talking with each other, laughing. We were new there, and had LOTS of introductions. One of the first things the pastor said when he got everyone (finally) seated was "find someone who you didn't come to church with today in your car and welcome them."
Studies show that conservatives give a higher percent of their incomes to charities than do liberals.
What is there about our church experience last week that does not fit with ideals of the Democratic Party?
I grew up a secular Jew, and arrived in the US very much aligned with progressive politics of the mid-late 90s. Since volunteering was something drilled into me since childhood, I kept seeking out ways to volunteer in the US. Then I started noticing how nearly all the people who volunteered with me in various places were religious people. That was my first break with progressives - people should be measured by their actions, not what they profess. I pretty much don’t care what someone argues politically, I measure them for their deeds. I just don’t care who you vote for if you’re a good person.
I think “elite Democrats” needs to be really emphasized here. If you actually separate the coalition, you find a huge and loyal Democratic bloc, especially Black Democrats (and often Hispanic Democrats), that’s markedly more religious than white college-educated Democrats. For example, Pew finds 75% of Black Democrats say they believe in God with absolute certainty, versus 29% of White Democrats.
So the issue isn’t “Democrats vs. religion” in general; it’s which Democrats are setting the party’s cultural tone and public signals. The party doesn’t have to go find faith voters somewhere else, it already has them inside its own coalition. The real question is why those voices seem underrepresented in the areas that shape messaging and agenda-setting.
I think this is a good point. It is one marker in a list of things that makes the rank and file Ds dissatisfied with the party in general.
"assigned at birth"
That phrase has to be the most idiotic nod to political correctness of the past ten years.
Secular Humanism, or Wokeness, or whatever you want to call it is the religion for Progressives.
Like the cross, the Star of David, or the crescent, this religion has the Pride Flag as its own sacred symbol.
The left doesn’t hate religion, it hates competing religions. In the way Islam despises Judaism, their religion despises Christianity.
When Harris' policy advisors told her the 2024 Al Smith dinner wasn't worth her time and she sent a SNL skit on video it was clear that no one at the level of Democratic policy had any knowledge of religion.
Yeah that was a good indicator that they see little value in faith.
Being accepting of different faiths and beliefs is a fundamental liberal value.
What really impressed me though and led to not only acceptance but an admiration for those who hold religious beliefs was seeing the work of Christian organisations in places where there were no other hospitals or health clinics other than the ones the Christians had set up. Places with not only little health care but no real functioning government.
The gov't (under Biden) using Southern Poverty Law Center reports to track Catholics and the FBI Richmond Memo under C. Ray demonstrate an anti-religious bias that has seeped into general Democratic attitudes to--at least--Catholics.
Tell a liberal friend you are a Catholic and that's what they remember...
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/us-bishops-religious-liberty-chairman-comments-leaked-fbi-memorandum
What happened to “Love thy neighbor as thyself”?
To atheist, people of faith are not neighbors but cheap, ignorant labor.
To Islam, atheist are a violin to be played until there is no more violin.
I don't think that's true of atheists.
When the first thing out of one's mouth or written word is to denigrate another's belief, to me it is obvious. Although it could be, only the more public ones have such beliefs.
I know a couple atheists and plenty of agnostics, and I just don't think they view Christians as "cheap, ignorant labor."
That may very well be true. I know few. But as I pointed out, it is the vocal ones I accuse. I asked numerous people who publicly denigrate other’s faiths what theirs is, faith or belief, and they won’t answer. Why is that? If you’re only argument is well your side sucks, that is no answer and certainly not an intelligent one.
I will add, that anyone who claims to be so brilliant to make such a declaration when the most intelligent scientist can’t, just proves how unqualified they are to make such a declaration.The answer is simple, explain your own beliefs, leave others to their own beliefs with no judgement.
I use the literal definition. Atheist just means a non-believer. Those who go further and assert that there is no God are, to me, anti-theists. They're certainly entitled to that view, but I distinguish it from atheism in the sense that I don't think atheists are necessarily anti-theists.
Not a problem with them being non-religious, but it's a big problem that they are hostile to Christianity.
As an atheist and one who believes in a woman's right to choose, I have no problem with atheist Democrats. What does chap my hide is anyone who claims to be a Christian who supports abortion. The hypocrisy is particularly strong with Cafeteria Catholics like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Either you buy into the mumbo jumbo as the true word of God or you're just posing.
Christianity does not universally condemn abortion.
Some denominations do, and some do not.
Further, biblical inerrancy is the same situation - some denominations believe in it and some do not.
That's interesting, Lisa. Which ones do not condemn it?
Offhand, Episcopal, Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Methodists.
I did a quick google and in some cases the exact doctrinal position is unclear and in others they kind of discourage but do not forbid it. See https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/
“On the other side of the debate, a number of religious groups, including the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the two largest American Jewish movements – Reform and Conservative Judaism – favor a woman’s right to have an abortion with few or no exceptions.
Many of the nation’s largest mainline Protestant denominations – including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Methodists – also support abortion rights, although several of these churches temper this support with the call for some limits on when a woman can terminate her pregnancy. For instance, while the Episcopal Church opposes statutory limits on abortion, it teaches that “it should be used only in extreme situations.”
“And for the National Baptist Convention, a historically black Protestant denomination in the U.S., church policy is to allow each individual congregation to determine its views on abortion.”
Thank you Lisa, for taking the time to research this! I must admit to surprise about the Methodist church as I was raised a Methodist, though I have not attended a Methodist service since before Roe. This has been quite an eye-opener.
Lisa was not precise in the names of the denominations she cited.. The United Methodist Church national organization is pro choice. But there are thousands of Methodist churches which have left the United Methodist organization over this and other sexual issues. And the Church of Christ is one of the very most conservative churches. Very much different than the United Church of Christ, which is among the most liberal. I understand the confusion. It is very confusing. And within these large organizations there are differences of opinion on these issues. But the generalizations are at least somewhat true.
Remember, remember, What "chaps my hide" (new to me, but you've got my vote) is when people decide they can determine the proper way for individual people to work through difficult questions that create for them serious conflicts of values. Pelosi and Biden are Catholics who have made a commitment to the principle of American government, including, as they see it, such values as freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. I believe both people -- along with many other Catholics and Christians -- see the question facing them as whether their beliefs should limit the beliefs and freedoms of others, not whether they "support abortion," which, if I recall, both have explicitly stated they do not.
When JFK ran for president he was faced with a strong anti-Catholic tradition in the American electorate. His opponents claimed that as president he would necessarily be beholden to the Pope and Church first and the Constitution second. He was eloquent in asserting that this was a false position, and that in his role as defender of the Constitution he would be faithful to the Constitution and in his role as a Catholic individual he would be faithful to the Church. This became a standard for the Democratic Party, resonating with the long-established tradition of the separation of Church and State. Had he not made this position a standard acceptable to a broad range of people, including many who did not vote for him but acknowledged their satisfaction with his position in this respect, no Catholic could have legitimately served as president without violating their oath or faith, nor, more broadly, could any person of strong religious conviction. (I am old enough to remember the critical nature of this issue in 1960 and to have admired the way JFK confronted it.)
You are, of course, free to judge others as you wish -- we all are. But I think to reduce the moral lives of individuals to black-and-white judgments we pass on complex problems of ethics and belief that they confront is to reduce our own humanity and political compassion.
Bob, "chaps my hide" could be a phrase that only us boomers recall. :-)
I'm old enough to remember JFK, though I was young and did not know of the Protestant reservations about his supposed subservience to the Pope until much later.
I was picking on Cafeteria Catholics in particular because under their doctrine, the Pope is relaying the word of God directly, so there is little room for argument in their sphere. If you truly believe in God and you also believe that the Pope is relaying his word, then how can you be a true Catholic and ignore the parts you don't like? Hence the term Cafeteria Catholics.
As far as Pelosi, I remembered her supporting the pro-choice movement for as long as I've been aware of her, but my memory isn't what it once was, so I Googled it to be sure and according to Google, "Yes, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been a long-time and vocal supporter of abortion rights and access to reproductive healthcare. Her public stance and legislative actions have consistently aligned with a 'pro-choice' position."
As far as Biden, the return was, "President Joe Biden has consistently expressed support for abortion rights and a woman's right to choose since running for president in 2020, a shift from his earlier, more moderate stance as a senator. He has made defending and expanding abortion access a cornerstone of his administration and campaign, particularly following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022." That sounds to me like he never spoke against abortion in order to avoid exposure of hypocrisy, but when Roe was struck down, his true colors came out.
Who knows, maybe they paid indulgences and think that their consciences are clear, but it seems to me that one cannot proclaim belief in God and ignore His will without eternal damnation. As many of the Protestants I know will tell you, asking for salvation in the name of Jesus Christ only works if you repent AND reform. These black and white judgments are an integral part of their creed. Can they show up for confession every week and expect absolution for the same sin? Having never been a Catholic, maybe I'm missing something...
I have little respect for either party, but I would never fault atheist/agnostic Democrats for being pro-choice and I stand with them on that issue. Likewise, I would never fault Democrats for going against their party on choice on religious grounds, even though I stand against them on that issue.
I've tried very hard to logically organize my own beliefs and maybe I am too judgmental, but for me, the hypocrisy of claiming to be a Christian who supports abortion is a breach of trust. All of us have weak moments where we act against our own beliefs and later regret it, but this is not a simple moment of weakness.
Remember x 2, The wonders of the Internet (which has so helped us reach our present utopian society) reveal to me that "chaps my hide" dates from the 19th century. I may be an early Boomer, but I don't go back that far! I guess the saying just ducked away from me when I looked until now.
I think you will find that the Catholic Church's view of the authority of the Pope is not nearly as simple or absolute as your describe. The "doctrine of papal infallibility" was actually promulgated only in 1870 (the date of Vatican I) and it is restricted to a narrow range of statements the Pope makes. Although the teachings of those statements are binding on members of the church, we've seen many time, most notably during the papacies of John XXIII and Francis that even within the church hierarchies there is pushback and independent thinking in the wake of an ex cathedra statement -- Catholic thinkers include some of the most independent and sophisticated minds in Western religious traditions. In practice there is plenty of room for argument, and it is very rare for the church to expel lay members for failing to follow without question doctrine that conflicts with their individual consciences. (This is all part of the Counter-Reformation positioning of the Church since it was forced to respond to the critiques of Luther and later members of the Reformation movement.)
Biden's position has consistently been that he is personally opposed to abortion because of his belief that "life" begins at conception, but that he cannot use the civic authority of his political position to enforce a religious belief on those who do not share it. I believe Pelosi has made similar statements (and I'd add that what you Googled about her in no way conflicts with the position I've described for Biden -- Pelosi has been more outspoken over her career, but the principles seem to me the same). There are indeed Catholics who believe both politicians should be denied the Eucharist and blessings of the Church, but they have not prevailed within the Church, which is, in fact, a far more liberal institution since Vatican II. If the Catholic Church respects cases of the individual responding to tensions between their ethical instincts and Church doctrine, I think it's a little strange for non-Catholics such as you and me to pass judgment on those people as hypocrites and to use denigrating terms like "Cafeteria Catholics" to refer to them. They and the leaders of the Church they belong to work within understandings of Faith; your critique is applying the most simplistic sort of rule by Reason and logic -- the problems and solutions of Faith are different from those of Reason and logic, and clearly your "black-and-white" reductionist view of what obedience to God means for Catholics is not the view adopted by the Church itself.
This isn't to deny that political figures like Biden and Pelosi may well act from mixed motives, some of which concern conscience and duty and others of which concern personal political success. Not being religious I don't have experience with how people negotiate these conflicts of motive, but I know that I so routinely fail to live up to what I regard as self-defining ethical commitments that I would hesitate to pass any judgment. There will always, of course, be people and politicians who are, in fact, simply ethically challenged hypocrites. I believe we have an unusually abundant array of both religious and secular examples today.
I agree entirely with your statement, "I would never fault Democrats for going against their party on choice on religious grounds, even though I stand against them on that issue." I would go further and say that I would not fault a Democrat who could not in good conscience support pro-choice legislation because of a conviction that human life begins at conception even without a religious concept of the soul. (I would, however, be unlikely to vote for them if there were a pro-choice alternative.)
Bob, I thank you for your in-depth and courteous response! Civil discourse seems to be dying out, so your response and Lisa's response below have been a most pleasant, as well as educational surprise.
I wish you a Merry Christmas, be it secular or otherwise. This year is a quiet one for me because all six of the delightful young terrorists I call grandchildren are waking up to Christmas morning at their other grandparents' homes. However, it's our turn next year, so I always have something to look forward to. :-)
Thank you, Remember. Our Christmas was quiet, like yours, and for similar reasons, but a good one nevertheless.
Encountering strangers who close an online disagreement by shaking hands, so to speak, always gives me hope. Thank you for that holiday gift as well.
Christian is no longer a word with any specific meaning. That's why many no longer use the title. I get tired of explaining the difference between all the "Christians" in the world. Any politician who says they can separate their most deeply held personal beliefs from their political beliefs is a charlatan and a liar. Those who believe it can be done, are just as bad. How many of those who are Islamic in faith do you see saying such stupid and ridiculous things? None. The only thing more ridiculous are the Dems, like the weak in MN, who let words like racist scare the shit out of them. No Gov Walz, no "man" would have such phobias. Especially when it comes to taking the actions necessary to correct wrongs.
It seems to me that the part of the cult with the most clout, but mentioned the least, are the NGOs. I've heard a lot more bad about them than good. Maybe it's time to put the critical light on them. I think Trump is going in the right direction cutting off the money from the government.
But also the fact that Christianity, Biblical Christianity, has it's largest growth under the most oppression.
The problem is that Gay Marriage is destroying the Democratic Party. After Obergfell, a prominent gay-rights advocate stated in interview with the NY Times and WaPo that the gay rights movement would not repeat the mistake of the abortion rights movement. They would refuse to accept any principled disagreement with gay rights and, instead, ostracize anyone who disagreed. The other interest groups in the Democratic coalition took notice. Thus, the Democrats predicament. So, if Democrats want any chance at a majority, they must abandon the LGBTQ+ approach to society and actually tolerate those who oppose the LGBTQ+ agenda.
I don't think gay marriage hurt them, but the trans movement sure has. The gay organizations have embraced the trans movement largely because it ensures ongoing financing. At the grass roots level, there isn't much love among the gays (and especially among the lesbians) for the trans.
It didn't hurt them, directly. But Gay Marriage made Democrats intolerant. It's that intolerance on the trans issue, climate, and others that's hurting them.
Are you sure? I hear that all the time in online discourse, and it does make sense. Gender ideology is the most medically harmful form of gay conversation therapy ever invented.* But I live in a blue state and have mostly secular friends and all my gay friends are big fighters for gender ideology.
* there are also the heterosexual men who are trans, which is an entirely different problem
I'm gay, and neither wear it on my sleeve nor am afraid to say so if it's relevant, such as right now. To the extent that there's support for the gender crap among gays, it's really about not wanting the trans people to go through what gay people used to go through. But that's different than signing onto the whole deal.
And yes, I think that "gender affirming treatment" is in fact the most anti-gay thing I have seen. It's a very old trope, i.e., that gay men are really women, and lesbians are really men. I could discuss it at great length, but it comes across as pedantic and frankly, too detailed. Most people, especially the hetero majority, really don't want to think about it, and I cannot blame them at all.
The M2F (male to female) trans group has really done damage to the lesbian community by insisting on being treated as women at EVERY level. Most of the lesbians I have known are not one bit amused. From my perspective, I was amused when they added the B in LGB, because (at the time) I said that no one cares about the B except when it involves the L or the G.
Then came the Q, which pissed me off. Then the T, which pissed me off more. So now it's LGBTQIA+, a grab bag for ... well, everything? Ugh. It's embarrassing. Not to mention that homo sapiens is a mammal, and mammals are sexually dimorphic, and here we have these people claiming to be for science being wholly unscientific. It goes on.
I remember online flame wars around the time of Obergefell where people would argue that being gay is a choice. I'm straight and I found that a quick, but polite way to shut them up was to ask them if back in their school days they saw a boy in their class in the next row over and they thought, "Wow, that boy is really hot, but I've decided to like girls instead." It was never a choice for me.
Trust me, way back when I sure as hell didn't want to be homosexual. In college, I went to bed with a girl twice, and after the second time, I stood in front of the mirror in my dorm room and said, out loud, "You're a faggot. Now get used to it." I was 19 and in the Midwest, where practicality rules.
It was the mid-1970s, and gay activism was a pretty big deal. I avoided it, not out of shame but out of practicality. First priority was to get an education. Second was to get a job after graduation. (It was the Rust Belt, and things looked grim that way.) Third was to find someone, and that someone was not an activist type for me.
So yeah, the whole "choice" accusation was absurd. So too, was the idea that gays "recruited." My one-liner there was that I hadn't been recruited but had enlisted. Those were the days. Now, I look at the ham-fisted trans propaganda, and am either irritated or amused, depending on my mood.
LGBTQIA+? "Non binary?" Um, I have another one-liner on that one, which is that I am every last bit as invested in "the binary" as any hetero out there. Each to their own, but keep the puberty blockers, the hormones, the pronouns, and the surgery away from minors. Period, end of paragraph, end of story.
Even if it were a choice, why the hell should anyone care? I don't know if you ever got married, but if you had, does that somehow make my marriage any less valuable to me? Sometimes I think that the only thing separating us from monkey's flinging shit at each other is that we have less hair to protect us from incoming turds.
As far as trans issues, I really could not care less if a man wants to dress up and pretend he's a woman. It's simply none of my business. The only thing I do care about is that children be left out of it all. They'll have plenty of time to make life-changing decisions once they're adults.
BTW, I joined the Marine Corps at 17 in 1975, so we're roughly the same age. It just took me longer to wake up to reality and go back to school. :-)
Andrew Sullivan wrote about this on the 10th anniversary of Obergefell
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/opinion/gay-lesbian-trans-rights.html
They'd better never make me emperor ... wait, I need to stop. The Sullivan column was great.
Atheocracy.
I am shocked by today's post. I think it is a fallacious view of the relationship between the Democratic Party and religious Americans, principally because it substitutes a vocal faction within the Party for the whole, and reduces the Party to views only held by some within that faction. It presents a poorly analyzed notion of the elements of religion that are at issue when addressing the Democratic disconnect with rural America. I'm a Liberal and I subscribe to The Liberal Patriot because I feel aligned with its general project, so this is a deeply disappointing post.
I want to mention specifics I find problematic, but first I should probably state that I am not religious, by which I don't mean I'm agnostic -- I feel no doubt about the existence of God -- but I also would not wish to be termed an "atheist": I don't view my belief as any type of theory or creed (not an "-ism") and I do not wish that people who believe in God did not, something associated, sometimes correctly, with atheism.
Mr. Halpin's analysis rests on the political divide between "more religious" rural America and "less religious" urban America, and on three divisions of views: on trans issues, on immigration, and on helping the needy. There is, I think, no question that the urban/rural divide correlates with less/more religious self-identification. But I see no relevance of this to the polling data on immigration and helping the need. Taking in the stranger and helping the poor are fundamental values of Christianity, shared with members of other religions and ethical secularists alike. In what way is the fact that urban Democrats say they are more supportive of these values than rural Republicans a reflection of "the God gap?" This is not just a confusion of correlation and causation; it is a confusion of the basic terms of argument. It is not lack of religion that makes urban Democrats open to immigrants and social welfare programs and it is not religion that makes rural Republicans less open to them.
Mr. Halprin's column recalls sentimentally a time when secular Democrats praised the charitable attitudes and efforts of religious communities, viewing them as positive elements of American society, and claims that now Democrats decry those who are religious and claim some are white nationalists. He is equating a change in his focus on the Democratic Party coalition for a change in attitude over time. Mainstream Democrats continue to view positively the broadly constructive contributions of religious communities, just as they did in pre-Obama times, and the element of the Democratic coalition Mr. Halpin dislikes -- the "non-profits" (as if they are all alike!) and the Democratic Socialists -- have had elements that have been as antagonistic as they are now for decades. (And I would like to see Mr. Halpin's implied argument that it is wrong to claim that some religious conservatives are white nationalists; race is often a major component of the rising force of Christian nationalism. The error on the extreme Left is precisely the type of error Mr. Halpin is committing in his post: identifying a damaging element within the broad range of Christian Americans as characteristic of the whole.)
On the "hot-button" issue of trans rights I think we need more sophisticated polling. One of the commenters on this page, JMan 2819, says: " . . . the same people who think I’m irrational for being a Christian also believe women have penises." There is indeed a slice of the Democratic coalition that would assert that "women have penises," but if polling allowed us to distinguish between that claim and a claim that "trans women have penises" (which of course they do) and to say whether trans women are women in all respects or some respects, varying according to individual cases, I think we could begin to emerge from this polarized and polarizing discourse. (I'd add as a response to JMan 2819 that I think he's irrational for being a Christian, but I don't think there is any reason belief has to justify itself as "rational": it is valid as what it is, belief. When I'm with religious friends who are speaking of the strength faith gives them, I feel sorry I don't possess it.)
Mr. Halpin may justly claim that the rise of social media has increased the salience of the "very online" progressive element of the party. I have assumed the entire project of The Liberal Patriot has been to persuade the Democratic Party to work to reduce to the salience of extreme elements of the progressive left (without abandoning elements of their platform that Democrats can justly embrace on Liberal grounds of good governance). I do not see how misrepresenting the Party as a whole as precisely the element it needs to guide towards the old pragmatic and flexible meaning of Progressivism makes any contribution to the project of this site (as I understand it).
But this misses the point. There has been no "demise of religion among Democrats." Educated Democrats have converted to a different religion, and they regularly attend church services at "mostly peaceful protests," chant their Creed such as "Globalize the Intifada," and faithfully chase heretic professors that don't want to make sacred Land Acknowledgments.
Of course their attendance at the old churches has declined.