4 ms·

I don't think so. The first thing to understand about US politics is that almost 40% of the population is evangelical. There can be no constructive political di

I don't think so. The first thing to understand about US politics is that almost 40% of the population is evangelical. There can be no constructive political discourse with that type of demographic skew. In addition to the generally irrational beliefs held by evangelicals (e.g. the earth being 6000 years old), they tend to vote as a unified block. The remaining 60% of the population generally has disparate interests and doesn't have a strongly unified vote.

ameister14 5y ago
If accurate, that would mean that there was no constructive political discourse in Europe period prior to the 20th century and certainly never has been any in the US, South or Central America. I disagree, so I think that's probably not the first thing to understand about US politics. Oh, also, you're incorrect - according to Pew it's closer to 25%.
- halpert 5y ago
  https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx As of 2020, the number was 34% responding yes to "Would you describe yourself as a "born-again" or evangelical Christian?". In 2019, it was 37%, and 42% in 2017. Pre-20th century Europe is not a great example of constructive political discourse btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
  - ameister14 5y ago
    https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ "born-again" and "evangelical" are not interchangeable terms, though there is significant cross-over. That's why you'll get a higher number if you ask if someone is either born again or evangelical than if you ask if they are evangelical alone.
- dfxm12 5y ago
  Are you mistaking Catholicism for Evangelicalism?
  - ameister14 5y ago
    No, I am not. I'm saying that if the 'demographic skew' of a large percentage of the population actively practicing one religion prevents meaningful political discourse, that would have prevented it in the places I mentioned. The other stuff about this specific religion having 'irrational' beliefs I think extends to most religions generally so I don't think is that useful as a differentiator.
    - dfxm12 5y ago
      I'm saying that if the 'demographic skew' of a large percentage of the population actively practicing one religion prevents meaningful political discourse... That isn't what the parent is arguing though.
      - ameister14 5y ago
        "The first thing to understand about US politics is that almost 40% of the population is evangelical. There can be no constructive political discourse with that type of demographic skew." Again, I don't think that the 'irrational beliefs' of evangelicals are unique to them, so as I said before if that's the point it also fails.
        dfxm12 5y ago
        Oh. The comment I see is a bit longer than just the bit you quoted.
        ameister14 5y ago
        Yes, I know it's longer, but that's the reasoning for the statement, not the statement itself. Breaking the argument down: Statement: The first thing to understand about US politics is that almost 40% of the population is evangelical. There can be no constructive political discourse with that type of demographic skew. So there can be no constructive political discourse because 40% of the population is evangelical. Why? Reasoning: 1. In addition to the generally irrational beliefs held by evangelicals (e.g. the earth being 6000 years old), they 2. tend to vote as a unified block, and 3. The remaining 60% of the population generally has disparate interests and doesn't have a strongly unified vote. As I said, throw out #1, because it isn't unique to their religion and you have two things: 1. an organized voting block with the sole unifier being religion and 2. a disparate remainder of the population with varied interests and religions. The first part of the remainder is also bunk, because only 56% of evangelicals lean republican. 28% lean democrat, the remainder are unaffiliated, according to Pew. So even if you took the 40% total which isn't accurate, you'd have a voting block of only about 21%, with 10% going the other side. But even if it were accurate, it again applies to any organized religion, unless you think that evangelicals are for some reason unique in their being aligned solely on the basis of religious belief. That would be a really weird argument given the wars fought over religion prior to the formation of protestant religions. the second part, sure, the population has varied interests. No disagreement there.
lkxijlewlf 5y ago
>... US politics is that almost 40% of the population is evangelical. They claim to be. But when some of them unironically rolled out a literal golden statue of their human leader, I saw no outrage from the rest of them. I saw no condemnation from the rest of them. I simply don't believe their claim.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > They claim to be. [...] I simply don't believe their claim. But does it even matter whether we, you and I, believe them or not; isn't the main issue whether they themselves believe it? (And I'm afraid enough of them do.)
nebula8804 5y ago
Keep in mind that a large chunk of the voting population does not vote. 2020 only had a ~66% turnout. That leaves quite a large number unaccounted for. Also that 60% is more concentrated in a handful of states while the 40% is more evenly spread out.

ameister14 5y ago

If accurate, that would mean that there was no constructive political discourse in Europe period prior to the 20th century and certainly never has been any in the US, South or Central America. I disagree, so I think that's probably not the first thing to understand about US politics. Oh, also, you're incorrect - according to Pew it's closer to 25%.

halpert 5y ago
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx As of 2020, the number was 34% responding yes to "Would you describe yourself as a "born-again" or evangelical Christian?". In 2019, it was 37%, and 42% in 2017. Pre-20th century Europe is not a great example of constructive political discourse btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
- ameister14 5y ago
  https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ "born-again" and "evangelical" are not interchangeable terms, though there is significant cross-over. That's why you'll get a higher number if you ask if someone is either born again or evangelical than if you ask if they are evangelical alone.
dfxm12 5y ago
Are you mistaking Catholicism for Evangelicalism?
- ameister14 5y ago
  No, I am not. I'm saying that if the 'demographic skew' of a large percentage of the population actively practicing one religion prevents meaningful political discourse, that would have prevented it in the places I mentioned. The other stuff about this specific religion having 'irrational' beliefs I think extends to most religions generally so I don't think is that useful as a differentiator.
  - dfxm12 5y ago
    I'm saying that if the 'demographic skew' of a large percentage of the population actively practicing one religion prevents meaningful political discourse... That isn't what the parent is arguing though.
    - ameister14 5y ago
      "The first thing to understand about US politics is that almost 40% of the population is evangelical. There can be no constructive political discourse with that type of demographic skew." Again, I don't think that the 'irrational beliefs' of evangelicals are unique to them, so as I said before if that's the point it also fails.
      - dfxm12 5y ago
        Oh. The comment I see is a bit longer than just the bit you quoted.
        ameister14 5y ago
        Yes, I know it's longer, but that's the reasoning for the statement, not the statement itself. Breaking the argument down: Statement: The first thing to understand about US politics is that almost 40% of the population is evangelical. There can be no constructive political discourse with that type of demographic skew. So there can be no constructive political discourse because 40% of the population is evangelical. Why? Reasoning: 1. In addition to the generally irrational beliefs held by evangelicals (e.g. the earth being 6000 years old), they 2. tend to vote as a unified block, and 3. The remaining 60% of the population generally has disparate interests and doesn't have a strongly unified vote. As I said, throw out #1, because it isn't unique to their religion and you have two things: 1. an organized voting block with the sole unifier being religion and 2. a disparate remainder of the population with varied interests and religions. The first part of the remainder is also bunk, because only 56% of evangelicals lean republican. 28% lean democrat, the remainder are unaffiliated, according to Pew. So even if you took the 40% total which isn't accurate, you'd have a voting block of only about 21%, with 10% going the other side. But even if it were accurate, it again applies to any organized religion, unless you think that evangelicals are for some reason unique in their being aligned solely on the basis of religious belief. That would be a really weird argument given the wars fought over religion prior to the formation of protestant religions. the second part, sure, the population has varied interests. No disagreement there.

lkxijlewlf 5y ago

>... US politics is that almost 40% of the population is evangelical. They claim to be. But when some of them unironically rolled out a literal golden statue of their human leader, I saw no outrage from the rest of them. I saw no condemnation from the rest of them. I simply don't believe their claim.

CRConrad 5y ago
> They claim to be. [...] I simply don't believe their claim. But does it even matter whether we, you and I, believe them or not; isn't the main issue whether they themselves believe it? (And I'm afraid enough of them do.)

nebula8804 5y ago

Keep in mind that a large chunk of the voting population does not vote. 2020 only had a ~66% turnout. That leaves quite a large number unaccounted for. Also that 60% is more concentrated in a handful of states while the 40% is more evenly spread out.