Weird Time for Christians

[Danny Bateman]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

but the same applies for Repubs that could be pro-choice to better represent their constituents.

 

This was my initial thought as well. It's a point that's almost never made in this discussion because Republicans are so nearly a monolith on this issue.

[TGHusker]

3 hours ago, RedDenver said:

This is probably a losing strategy as they'd lose more pro-choice voters than they'd gain pro-life voters. Especially since 68% of their own party are pro-choice and independents are evenly split at 50%.

 

There may be individual local races that the Dem could be pro-life and better represent their constituents, but the same applies for Repubs that could be pro-choice to better represent their constituents.

True - yes in Okla for example - a prolife Dem could win but in a more liberal district in NY or CA probably not going to happen.   There are some pro-choice repubs and yes, they could contest some of those left leaning districts - but not in the Era of Trump - there is a blue wave coming regardless. 

[commando]

i wonder if any christians don't like the look pence likes to give to donnie.  it's the same look nancy used to give ronnie

 

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by commando

[commando]

ummm.....

 

[Fru]

[NM11046]

On 4/18/2018 at 5:26 PM, TheSker said:

I think Trump's favorable view within that broad population has much more to do with economic ideology than religious ideology.

I'm a little late to the discussion on this ..... but, data I have seen this week show that 54% (or similar) of white men support him.  You're saying this is due to his economic ideology?  If so, wouldn't that align more to age and go across sex and race lines?

 

[TheSker]

3 hours ago, NM11046 said:

I'm a little late to the discussion on this ..... but, data I have seen this week show that 54% (or similar) of white men support him.  You're saying this is due to his economic ideology?  If so, wouldn't that align more to age and go across sex and race lines?

 

The demographic referenced was white christians.

[TGHusker]

The following article is a response to a New Yorker mag article's criticism of Chick Fil a  invading NYC.  I think this is an excellent response.  When broad brushing groups of people, in this case Christians, we may not have our facts correct.  Perception doesn't always match reality. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-ugly-coded-critique-of-chick-fil-as-christianity/ar-AAwg9Dg?ocid=spartanntp

 

A portion of the article quoted here:

 

Quote

 

What the author really seems angry about is that the company’s CEO opposes same-sex marriage. But the framing of the piece made Christianity the villain, and the headline -- “Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City” -- was sufficiently troubling that Nate Silver quickly tweeted “This is why Trump won.” Fair point. Religious bigotry is always dangerous. But there’s a deeper problem here, a difficulty endemic to today’s secular left: an all-too-frequent weird refusal to acknowledge the demographics of Christianity. When you mock Christians, you’re not mocking who you think you are. 

A 2015 Pew Research Center study of race and ethnicity among U.S. religions provides some basic facts. In the first place, if you’re mocking Christians, you’re mostly mocking women, because women are more likely than men to be Christians. The greatest disproportion is found among black Christians, of whom only 41 percent are male. So you’re mocking black women in particular. 

Overall, people of color are more likely than whites to be Christians -- and pretty devout Christians at that. Some 83 percent of all black Americans are absolutely certain that God exists. No other group comes close to this figure. Black Christians are far more likely than white Christians (84 percent to 64 percent) to describe religion as very important in their lives. Of all ethnic groups, black Christians are the most likely to attend services, pray frequently and read the Bible regularly. They are also -- here’s the kicker -- most likely to believe that their faith is the place to look for answers to questions about right and wrong. And they are, by large margins, the most likely to believe that the Bible is the literally inerrant word of God. In short, if you find Christian traditionalism creepy, it’s black people you’re talking about. 

It’s true that, politically, black Americans are overwhelmingly Democrats, and that’s true of black Christians as well. On the other hand, black Christians tend to be socially conservative: the least tolerant of homosexuality, the most likely to oppose same-sex marriage and the least likely to believe in evolution. 2  If you’re maligning traditional Christianity, the people you’re maligning are disproportionately black.

And then there’s this fascinating table:

 

© Source: Pew Research Center Here we see something about the future. Look at the figures for the young, on the left-hand side. Only 9 percent of white Christians are young millennials, compared with 21 percent of Asian Christians and 16 percent of Latino Christians. Some 17 percent of white Christians are from the so-called silent generation. No other group comes close. In other words, white Christians are aging. Christians of color are youthening.

As I’ve noted before in this space, the figures are equally striking worldwide. Even as the U.S. and Europe see the growth of atheism and agnosticism, religious faith in general and Christianity in particular continue to explode in parts of the world that aren’t as white. That’s why the Vatican, for example, sees developing nations as the future of the church. And around the globe, the people most likely to be Christians are women of color.

Which brings us to one last point from the Pew study. Among Latinos and Asians, Christians are overwhelmingly first-generation immigrants.

 

 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

The following article is a response to a New Yorker mag article's criticism of Chick Fil a  invading NYC.  I think this is an excellent response.  When broad brushing groups of people, in this case Christians, we may not have our facts correct.  Perception doesn't always match reality. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-ugly-coded-critique-of-chick-fil-as-christianity/ar-AAwg9Dg?ocid=spartanntp

 

A portion of the article quoted here:

 

 

I agree that mocking groups is not a good idea or a good look and is generally counter-productive. And the Chik-Fil-a op-ed was ridiculous. But this article's attempt to tie mocking Christians into mocking other groups some of whom are Christian is ridiculous.

[Guy Chamberlin]

On 4/18/2018 at 2:26 PM, TheSker said:

I think Trump's favorable view within that broad population has much more to do with economic ideology than religious ideology.

 

Yet both are bankrupt. 

 

Trump's favorable view is based mostly on:

 

1) He's not Hillary

2) Roe v Wade

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Making Chimichangas]

On 4/18/2018 at 3:26 PM, TheSker said:

I think Trump's favorable view within that broad population has much more to do with economic ideology than religious ideology.

 

I think Trump's favorable view within the white, protestant, christian group has more to do with him appealing to their inherent bigotry, racism, and anti-lbgtqia beliefs.  In other words, they'll champion for Trump and defend him no matter what--as long as he keeps hating the n words, jews, gays, and any/everyone else not white, hetero, protestant, and "christian."

[Landlord]

On 5/4/2018 at 7:12 AM, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is stupid, B.S. journalism. The two have nothing to do with each other.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Moiraine]

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

 

Graph from the article: