From American Nones: The Profile of the “No Religion” Population:
The proportion with “No Religion” has gone from 9% in 1990 to 15% in 2008. In most ways those with “No Religion” have become more like the general population since 1990, but not politically (the American population is less Republican than in 1990 because of a movement to Independents, but the seculars have shifted to the Democrats).
H/T Talk Islam
This chart doesn’t mean much untless the increase proportion of democrats among the no-religion folks is significantly greater than the increase in the general population. We need a baseline.
did you read my last sentence:
the American population is less Republican than in 1990 because of a movement to Independents, but the seculars have shifted to the Democrats
in any case, since you’re of the set who are not inclined to follow links provided, but ask questions which could easily be answered by following the links (which i assume you presume to be garnish or just for appearance):
all americans, 1990-2008
dem, 35-34
rep, 29-24
ind, 29-31
other, 7-11
while the american population has a whole has shifted somewhat to independent affiliation, seculars have moved from repub to dem, as a whole (since many of the individuals are new to the political process on an individual level there are many ways you could get this aggregate change which don’t involve necessary individual shifts from rep to dem).
I imagine almost all the independents and other would be best classified as “liberals”. The atheist-osphere is notoriously leftist and politically correct.
The atheist-osphere is notoriously leftist and politically correct.
yes.
Gee, I wonder why those who fail to believe in Magical Invisible Beings are increasingly less Republican?
Gee, I wonder why those who fail to believe in Magical Invisible Beings are increasingly less Republican?
only ~50% of those with “No Religion” are atheists or agnostics and such. an even smaller proportion actually self-identify as such. of those who believe, more are theists than deists.
Fine. Why would any of them want of to associate themselves with the modern (and I use that term advisedly) GOP? Look at your top 3 GOP 2012 presidential candidates:
One adheres to a worldview that includes, among other things, Jesus partied with Native Americans centuries ago. For some reason we are not supposed to find such a thing crazy per se.
Another is a Holy Ghoster–speaking in tongues, casting out demons, etc.–although she has apparently bagged some of these activities for the duration of her heightened political profile (which can only hope will be brief, despite her alleged MILFness in the eyes of some).
The other is a Southern Baptist minister–’nuff said.
The fringe players (pun intended) are no better. We have the Louisiana Exorcist. A Congresswoman from Minnesota nuttier than all the foregoing combined. Gingrich, at an age when he really should know better, has decided the Church of Rome is where it is really at, ala Tony Blair. And no one was able to out-insane Jeb Bush, another Romanist, on the Terri Schiavo case.
Pawlenty is the only name I’ve heard who I do not know to be a nutcase. And as far as know that is his sole virtue (but I am willing to learn).
I really can’t see any reason why anyone who embraces secularism in any meaningful way should make common cause with the GOP. I certainly would not advocate that they adhere to the Dems either, but at least that is not so obviously demented. “Secularists for the GOP” is approaching the “Jews for Hitler” standard (please note: this last bit is deliberate hyperbole–but less than it used to be).
Mark:
I’ll take the nuts,–any of ’em–over the destroyers of civilization.
As the Republican Party has become more and more dominated by flat Earth fundamentalists, or at least those that pander to that group, I can see why secularists would drift to the other party. I voted straight Republican for 20 years, then found myself pulling the lever for Democrats on occasion when they were running against the real crazies. This last election with John McCain, who I believe knows better, and Sarah Palin on the ticket, I had to hold my nose tighter than ever when I cast my vote for the R team. I’m not sure how much longer I can do this though.
Gene, I am done making excuses to vote for crazy people. You are more than welcome to continue, however. Just let me know how that works out for you. I suppose a masochist could learn to like being taken for granted, but despite two marriages, I am just not that much into pain.
Back in the days of Reagan, the nuts were the useful idiots of the GOP. Now the lunatics run the asylum.
seculars have moved from repub to dem, as a whole
Not proven. The overall increase in seculars over this time period is so large, when I multiply through, I get a roughly constant number of secular Republicans. (And secular Democrats roughly doubling.)
Drawing the stacked-bars equally high when the total size of the groups they represent is substantially different creates a very misleading visual perception. I suggest redrawing with the y-axis “% of total population” – the 1990 stack will be significantly shorter, but if my calculations are correct, the Republican slice of it will be about the same.
As for why most *new* seculars are Dem or Ind, I generally agree with Mark. Even if you disagree with his perceptions of the modern Republican Party, I think they are likely to be common among present-day nonreligious people, especially those who don’t follow the minutiae of politics well enough to understand intraparty divisions. If you only see one face of the Republican Party, it is highly likely to be an aggressively Christian face.
chris, good point!
I really can’t see any reason why anyone who embraces secularism in any meaningful way should make common cause with the GOP. I certainly would not advocate that they adhere to the Dems either, but at least that is not so obviously demented.
What’s “obviously demented” is something that is in the eye of the beholder. There certainly is a faction within the Republican Party which seeks to elevate mysticism into governing principle, but they’re only a faction unlike what we see within the Democratic Party where non-rational belief is widely held and, more importantly, actually plays a significant part in policy formulation.
One can break this down into a matrix exercise where Conservatives and Liberals are compared on a.) policies formulated on empirical/historical evidence versus ideology, b.) governance based on faith versus governance based on evidence-based reasoning.
Liberals moreso than Conservatives, in my estimation, are more likely to actually govern based on their faith-based ideology. Sure, plenty of religious conservatives want to inject god into government regulation, but what they desire doesn’t actually come about, unlike say socialist policies implemented by Democrats.
Ideology based on on faith but dressed up in the garb of empiricism is, in my mind, no different than ideology that is outrightly acknowledged as faith, and in fact, speaking personally, I much prefer to deal with people who are forthright in declarations of their faith-based world view compared to those who fool themselves as being informed by a rational and evidence-based analytic mental model because with the former you know how to deal with them but with the latter if you try to address them with a rational, analytic approach and they are really faith-based folks, then you open up a world of confusion.