I think the most interesting portion of this article shows how nonreligious are a key portion of the democratic base but how little politicians target them. Its a very interesting since it shows both the diversity of those who are nonreligious in both demographics and opinions.
Religion has always been used as a sales tactic in politics. All you have to do is say "I'm a devote Christian" and you've got an instant base. Politicians have been preying on this for decades. The problem with non-religious people is that you have no instant base with them. You are judged by your actions and your record, rather than your affiliation with some belief system. That is much harder. Politicians go after the low hanging fruit, always. If they want to target the non-religious demographic they're going to have to actually work for it. I'm not holding my breath.
equally important, they don't even have to persuade the masses. many religious folk will vote for candidate because their preacher tells them to. while it's far from every religious person, there's a very large group of religious people who will do just about anything because a guy in a suit told them god said to.
Including voting for trump. a few years ago, i was visiting my grandmother for the 4th- in Missouri, and ended up walking out of the sanctuary when they started the advertisements during the offering. Specifically advertising local businesses that were congregants (who also made a nice donation...) and politicians (who also made a nice donation...) but ran an advertisent saying trump was the only godly choice.
now, I'm an atheist, so far be it from me to tell someone they're ungodly...but I grew up in the church and... what we no publicly of him... he's as far from godly as you can get. One of the deacons walked out- mostly polite old man, at least until I wouldn't just accept assertions- to talk with me.
I said I find hard to believe that a christian church would call Trump godly. he blinked a bit and asked what I meant. I think I started with how his immigration policy was predicated on hurting people so they wouldn't come here, and how christ himself was a refugee. Then moved on to how his politics hurts the poor and destitute, while protecting and further-enriching the rich; despite christ being very opposed to the rich, and very much in support of the poor. then I mentioned the whole stormy daniels thing, and that he's had numerous affairs, and that he's a known misogynist... and just went on from there... it was very bullet-point format.
They had no real answer for it. except they did expect me to accept their assertions he was still godly all the same, and the democrats were worse. (he was, in point of fact, foaming at the mouth. might have just needed a glass of water, though.)
The point to that, however, is that there's a lot of people that will listen to preachers/religious leaders. Even if that leader really doesn't deserve it
Maybe. I might be convinced to vote in a democratic primary for the person who said, "I'm an atheist and I'm here to take our government back from the cults."
Though, I suppose I'm bolstering your point given my own hedging words.
I will always say that politicians has a whole are opportunistic. They won't join a voting niche until they know it's valid. Voters start and they follow with some exceptions
Add comment