By Dan Merica, CNN
Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama’s victory relied largely on two dramatically different religious coalitions – minority Christians and those with no religion – according to a survey released Thursday.
“This presidential election is the last in which a white Christian strategy will be considered a plausible path to victory,” said Robert P. Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, which conducted the survey. “The American religious and ethnic landscape is becoming increasingly diverse, and any campaigns relying on outdated maps are destined to lose their way.”
One-in-four Obama voters were religiously unaffiliated, the second-largest “religious” demographic in the president’s coalition, according to the study (PDF). Minority Christians – consisting of black, Asian, Hispanic and mixed-race Americans – made up 31% of Obama’s coalition, the largest religious group.
Among major religious demographics, Obama struggled most with white Christians, including Catholics, mainline Protestants and evangelical Protestants. When these three groups were added up, they accounted for just 35% of Obama’s religious coalition. In comparison, Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s coalition was overwhelmingly white and Christian, with 79% of Romney voters identifying as such.
The Public Religion Research Institute numbers flesh out exit polls released after Election Day. According to those numbers, 70% of the religiously unaffiliated supported Obama, compared with 26% who backed Romney. Ninety-five percent of black Protestants voted for Obama, according to the exit polls, while 75% of Hispanic Catholics supported the president.
Romney, according to the exit polls, overwhelmingly won white evangelical Christians (79% voted for him) and white Catholics (59% voted for him).
The rise of the religiously unaffiliated has been a major recent trend. A survey by Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released this year found that the fastest-growing "religious" group in America is made up of people with no religion at all. According to the survey, 20% of adult Americans have no religious affiliation.
At an event announcing the Pew results, senior research adviser John Green said the growing political power of the unaffiliated within the Democratic Party could become similar to the power the religious right acquired in the GOP in the 1980s.
The 2012 election results have some political experts questioning whether the religious right’s influence is fading.
The Rev. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, tweeted after the election that the results show “we are witnessing a fundamental moral realignment of the country.”
Conservative evangelist Franklin Graham, CEO of Samaritan’s Purse and son of the Rev. Billy Graham, told CNN that while he doesn’t believe the movement is fading, “there is a lot of work we need to do.”
“I just think there are a lot of conservative Christians who did not vote for whatever reason,” Franklin Graham said.
Like Graham, Jones said the legalization of same-sex marriage by ballot initiative in three states last week shows that America is changing.
“For the first time tonight, same-sex marriage has been passed by popular vote in Maine and Maryland,” Jones said last week. “The historic nature of these results are hard to overstate. Given the strong support of younger Americans for same-sex marriage, it is unlikely this issue will reappear as a major national wedge issue.”
The results of the Public Religion Research Institute survey were based on 1,410 telephone interviews in both Spanish and English conducted between November 7 and Sunday. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.
– CNN’s Dan Gilgoff contributed to this report.
G0d h8tes g@ys
N if u r g@y u h@te and reject G0d
I do not buy the mixed-race category. That could still mean black or hispanic. The black church is socialistic as is 'liberal' christianity. Which means liberal-republican Romney and his side-kick libertarian twist(socially liberal) should of gotten that 'demographic'.
Did you mean that Ryan is socially liberal? He's far from it.
"No religion at all" is not a religious group.
Bonjour Street Smart - Honey Molasses - I get it. Take your wet panties off before getting on air tonight - Lance D. (wink)
"If you don't like the First Amendment, get the fudge out. Religion has every right to exist, and I and many others will gladly fight any attempt to suppress the rights of others."
Yet you had no problem trying to suppress the black vote, despite the fact that blacks have the right to vote. You try to deny the people you hate their rights, but scream and yell if you think someone wants to deny you your rights. What hypocrites you religious neo-cons are. Full of hate yet claiming to love Jesus and God, who according to the bible, created us all. Amazing.
U spoken like a true champion
Religiously diverse people voted for President Obama.
Why did all these "different" people vote for the same man, for his vision?
What is the one common belief that caused this unified vote?
....the belief in equality and freedom of rights.
This is the one belief that all share and worship.
This is the one belief that President Obama professed to all...this is the "mark of liberty" that all have on their forehead irrespective of their "personal faiths/ ways of life".
This is their "god of fortresses".
BUT it is Christ thst will rule, and the signs show that the time is at hand.
The time has been "at hand" for 2000 years. Face it, it just ain't gonna happen.
Jesus failed at his own prophacy for his return. Christians like you continue that tradition.
Wait here for me my sheep. BRB...JK LOL. Never coming back...im fvcking dead dipsh•ts.
Actually I think more people voted AGAINST Mit than voted FOR Obama.
I know I did. Mit lied and changed positions too much. I would have voted for amlost anyone else.
Almost anyone else.
And now for those new members of this blog:
IF THE PILL AND MALE CONDOMS WERE USED PROPERLY, ABORTION WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE AND OBAMA WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT.
The disturbing details:
The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an agnostic guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-
Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. -
The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:
: The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.
Added information before making your next move:
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
Consumer Reports, January, 2012
"Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)
Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).
Im confused what your argument is...or how it relates to this article. But its cool that you can quote statistics and reference your sources I guess?
LOL! Are you a gynecologist or something? Geeze!
The topic is about who propelled BO to the White (Blood Red) House. And the answer is once again, the Immoral/Stupid Majority did just like in 2008:
Only for the new members of this blog–>>>>
As noted many times before the election:
Why the Christian Right no longer matters in presidential elections:
Once again, all the conservative votes in the country "ain't" going to help a "pro-life" presidential candidate, i.e Mitt Romney, in 2012 as the "Immoral Majority" rules the country and will be doing so for awhile. The "Immoral Majority" you ask?
The fastest growing USA voting bloc: In 2008, the 70+ million "Roe vs. Wade mothers and fathers" of aborted womb-babies" whose ranks grow by two million per year i.e. 78+ million "IM" voters in 2012.
2008 Presidential popular vote results:
69,456,897 for pro-abortion/choice BO, 59,934,814 for "pro-life" JM.
And the irony:
And all because many women fail to take the Pill once a day or men fail to use a condom even though in most cases these men have them in their pockets. (maybe they should be called the "Stupid Majority"?)
The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and S-TDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or condoms properly and/or use other safer birth control methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.
i.e. IF THE PILL AND MALE CONDOMS WERE USED PROPERLY, ABORTION WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE AND OBAMA WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT.
Reality. That is some crazy logic. You're saying that because of a 1973 SCOTUS ruling, people feel endebted to BO which translates into votes in 2008 and 2012? Based on that logig, why wouldn't Democrats have won every election since? How about that the GOP is so out of touch and they had no good candidates. Huntsman was probably the most suitable but Romney was totally out of touch – even his post-election comments show that.
Reality, do you even read your laughable posts? My bet is no. After all, your two failure rates for male condom use differ by over 15%. Try thinking instead of cutting and pasting.
With such a small margin of victory, you could say the same thing about any group you want. It just depends on how you want to spin the story I guess.
Small margin? What are you smoking?
52% vs 48%
We'll be back in 2016 to rescue the nation. mark my words. In the mean time I have contacted my congressman and senators office to let them know they better limit the damage this clown will do to the nation. no namby pamby 'compromise'.
"mark my words" already done, with a big yellow "X" in the snow...
If you think of 3,473,402 people "a small margin of victory" you are delusional. And to add to your frustration I should also note that the winning side has a GROWING demographic while the losing side has a shrinking one. Odd's of the republitards doing better in 2016? ZERO!! The gap will only widen by those who are voting for a democracy and those who are voting for a theocracy. Get used to losing.
@ TeaBagger – in the hours, days, weeks, and months leading up to the election, you ignorant nutters kept proclaiming the election was going to be a landslide. Hell, even that morning, nutters on FAUX were still saying it was going to be a landslide.
What happened Sparky? All actual reliable indicators showed Obama winning the electoral college by a substantial margin. But seriously – in the 8 "key battleground states" you cretins said Romney would win to seal the election – Obama ran the mother-fucking board.
You nutters lost – AGAIN.
And your rationale is that you weren't conservative enough? Seriously?
Doesnt matter this victory. Hoosein is going to be one frustrated president.
I have called twice and told my 'representatives' to filibuster / block any bill that does socialistic things like raise taxes at this time of recession. ditto grows the reach of government. Many other things. No compromise with evil ideas. If they dont listen, I and my buddies will vote them out in 2 years. They know it.
what happened is that as Romney said, people who wanted handouts voted for their man. more complex but this is the simple version.
I'm not sure what world you guys are living in that 3% would be considered anything but small.
fred “With such a small margin of victory, you could say the same thing about any group you want. It just depends on how you want to spin the story I guess.”
If you evang-o-baggers had won by this big a margin you would have been dancing in the streets and declaring the kingdom of god would be descending into Washington on inauguration day
@Typical disingenuous christian
If you evang-o-baggers had won by this big a margin you would have been dancing in the streets and declaring the kingdom of god would be descending into Washington on inauguration day
I'm an atheist democrat asshole!
"I have called twice and told my 'representatives' to filibuster / block any bill that does socialistic things like raise taxes at this time of recession. ditto grows the reach of government."
So you made sure they knew you were AGAINST the government inserting itself into who can marry who, what a woman gets to do with her own body, and people get to decide on what they want to inhale right??
The govt has a legilimate role in protecting unborn humans, freedom of religion (catholoc church instiutions and Berth Control) and traditional marriage (bedrock of society as someone here stated). WHat it cant do is redistribution of income or other socialist thing.
The margins in this election were small, yes, but they were consistently in favor of Barack Obama in the states that mattered.
This election was won and won convincingly according to the way the electoral college is set up. That is the way we have set up this republic.
Is the electoral college the 'best' solution for all Americans. Absolutely not. The conventional wisdom of the political pundits is that the electoral college as it stands today continues to favor the GOP – particularly when states like Texas continue to increase their number of electoral college votes.
If you don't like it change it. I would endorse a const!tuational amendment to eliminate the electoral college and replace it with the popular vote.
"Berth Control" ha! Do you have fantasies about being a harbor master?
"The govt has a legilimate role in protecting unborn humans, freedom of religion (catholoc church instiutions and Berth Control) and traditional marriage (bedrock of society as someone here stated)."
So the government has that right, but only if YOU agree with it?
See what's wrong with the picture here? You're basing whgat the government can do based on RELIGIOUS beliefs...and it doesn't work that way; sorry.
Teabagger. It's not socialist to collect taxes. Taxes are at the lowest they've been in 60+ years. Reagan and HW raised taxes. BO did not create the deficits and debts – Bush did. The government's role to protect includes the church but not specifically the church. Berth control is that what the captain does?
BERTH CONTROL? I swear, this HAS to be a poe. Nobody could be that brain-dead.
So nobody can make a mistake? I was typing fast. Pls address the semantics of the message not the syntax.
You don't know what the word "semantics" means, you moron.
Teabagger. Yes typos should be ignored as much as possible, but birth control is supposedly a major plank of why you condemn other people's religion and voting. So presumably if it is that important to you, you should know how to spell it – i and e are on opposite sides of the keyboard so it's not "fat finger".
btw should you be taking the name of your imaginary savior in vain?
You don't know what "syntax" means, either, Tea-brain.
Syntax : a state-sponsored tax that is added to products or services that are seen as vices, such as alcohol, tobacco and gambling
You're funny as a crutch, fred.
I have to admit I set you up with that open ended question, TeaPatriot. I had a feeling you would be referring to popular vote, which of course is not how our President is elected. Odd for someone who calls himself a Patriot to not understand this premise. Obama received 61.7% of the Electoral College votes. Romney suffered a massive loss, not a marginal one.
"I'm not sure what world you guys are living in that 3% would be considered anything but small."
Nice to see the OP is a knucklehead as well... President isn't elected by popular vote, which is the percentage you're using. Instead of spending all your energy blocking the good things Obama wants to do, why don't you and TeaPatriot call your representatives and tell them this country needs more money spent on education, otherwise it'll fill up with folks like you who don't know how the President is elected.
Crutch: the crotch of a human being or an animal.
Your crotch is unsuitable as a leg rest consti-tuting the pommel of a sidesaddle.
Cute, fred. Too bad you are so fvcking clueless. The first definition, the one you ignoreda : a support typically fitting under the armpit for use by the disabled in walking.
You obviously don't get it. No matter what "it" is, you don't comprehend the meaning.
Why would I care what you say about god or the bible, when you demonstrate a level of ignorance that rivals that of a 5-year-old?
Everyone else is ignorant, except me. I know I don't know anything but all of you are ignorant. Agree with me or I will call you names.
Darn kids, get off my lawn.Come into my playground and you should expect me to bully you.
And you better not misspell anything while you are here. Otherwise I'll call you more names.
It is you who missed the point by being crotchety !
Now, as to crutch you are in need of one since you cannot see God and fail to understand that is because of the same reason the Sanhedrin could not see God and why Jesus refused to give them the proof they demanded.
Ferd. when you figure out how to write a coherent sentence, do alert the media.
Coherent; relating to or composed of waves having a constant difference in phase
Jesus said: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
Notice that if you are walking in darkness a crutch is exactly what you need. The proof is that those who depend upon God to walk in the light can see by faith. Those who walk under their own power are constantly demanding proof that God exists.
Please alert the media !
I'm sure you think you've made some sort of point, fred. You haven't.
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
Let’s see how could I make this simple enough that a 5 year old could understand?
Stop using your crotch as a crutch !
No, I was saying that those who do not need God or think they are not sinners will not find God.
Society consists of family units
a family unit consists of dad, mom and kids
function of family unit: dad teaches kids how to be a man, and how to relate to women; mom teached kids how to be a woman and how to relate to men.
Threats to family unit
1. easy divorce (coz I like it!). dissolution of family unit must be reserved only for abuse or adultery
2. anything leading to promiscity, like Birth control or ab0rtion. When s3x can lead to pregnancy and nothing can stop it, and unmarried motherhood is frowned upon by society, family units are naturally formed
3. any other kind of family unit (e.g. 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and a sheep, 1 man with a underage girl)
4. threats to life in general (e.g. ab0rtion)
Please go and watch the Robin Williams movie "The Birdcage".
Society consists of individuals, and what these individuals do is of no concern to other individuals (taking the harm principle into account).
Are you saying that anything other than a man and a woman having kids isn't a "family"? Single parents can't raise a "family"? Uncles, cousins, and grandparents can't raise kids other than their own as a "family"? Sheep and underaged people can't get married because they can't enter into contracts by themselves. FYI, in the good old days back when more people were supposedly Christian girls often got married at ages we now consider underaged. A lot of our ancestors would be considered pedophiles these days.
This is called wishful thinking and avoids more appropriate techniques used to make claims, such as observation, statistical analysis or logic. While there may be few countries where the above claim is closer to truth, they are generally in the Middle East.
I don't accept you definitions. So when a parent dies the child stops being part of a familty?
You are an idiot.
the kind of family I mentioned is the best kind of family, as I told my son when he asked me about some boy in his class who "had 2 moms" (sic)
If the family unit does break up then of course one paren is better than 2 parents.
"the kind of family I mentioned is the best kind of family, as I told my son when he asked me about some boy in his class who "had 2 moms" (sic)"
The hundred of thousands of experts in this country have proven your bigoted statement wrong.
Heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured."
Like their heterosexual counterparts, many gay and lesbian people want to form stable, long-lasting, committed relationships. Indeed, many of them do and that large proportions are currently involved in such a relationship and that a substantial number of those couples have been together 10 or more years.
Research demonstrates that the psychological and social aspects of committed relationships between same-sex partners closely resemble those of heterosexual partnerships. Like heterosexual couples, same-sex couples form deep emotional attachments and commitments. Heterosexual and same-sex couples alike face similar issues concerning intimacy, love, equity, loyalty, and stability, and they go through similar processes to address those issues. Research examining the quality of intimate relationships also shows that gay and lesbian couples have levels of relationship satisfaction similar to or higher than those of heterosexual couples.
A large number of gay and lesbian couples raise children. Children and teenagers whose parents provide loving guidance in the context of secure home environments are more likely to flourish – and this is just as true for children of same-sex parents as it is for children of opposite-sex parents. Based on research findings, mental health professionals have also reached a consensus that the quality of relationships among significant adults in a child’s or adolescent’s life is associated with adjustment. When relationships between parents are characterized by love, warmth, cooperation, security, and mutual support, children and adolescents are more likely to show positive adjustment. In contrast, when relationships between parents are conflict-ridden and acrimonious, the adjustment of children and adolescents is likely to be less favorable. These correlations are just as true for children of same-sex parents as for children of opposite-sex parents.
Assertions that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children of heterosexual parents, have no support in the scientific research literature. On the contrary, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has consistently shown that the former are as fit and capable as the latter and that their children are as psychologically healthy and well adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.
It's sad to know your kid is being told such ignorant prejudice views.
YeahRight, what about thiis link: goo DOT gl SLASH 7mj5j
Even though actual research proves my position wrong and teaching our "kids how to be a man" is totaly subjective, I feel I should have the right to force others to obey how I feel about things...
"the best kind of family"
And you claim to have a conscience... lol
@SoldierOfIdiocy – World Nut Daily? That's your source? And they link to an article from Regent Clown and Bible School?
That's your fucking source? Seriously?
And you wonder why we mock you cretins incessantly?
@ Yeah Right...Thank you for your thoughts....Amen and God Bless....Family is Family no matter how it is put toghether
the family unit does not have to be one man and one woman.
as far as people marrying animals, that is just dumb
Say what you want about society, but civilization is built upon more than just the family unit.
"Best" in your own, narrow-minded opinion, you mean?
hate to be a bearer of bad tidings, but this country isn't a "Leave it To Beaver" TV Show, as much as you would like for it to be.
No to president Hussein
No to big gubmint
I'm not sure if you're just a liberal troll or a conservative retard, but I hope you realize that both the Dems and Republicans are big government parties and that the Tea Party movement, in social policy, is massively big government.
You caught me. I am a liberal troll
ya name stealer! go away. unlike you I am a TRUE PATRIOT and defend the values our country is built on.
You got to say "No" with your vote. Unfortunately for you, too many people said "YES"!
Sue, 52 percent vs 48 percent. We'll be back in the mid year election and in 2016.
Dream on! Hillary in 2016! :-)
If one doubts the "war on religion" all you have to do is read the posts on sites like this one.If the 14% that has no religious affiliation or beliefs had their way, the 86% that has "at least some religious connection" would be abolished from existence.. That wont happen. Also we will not give up our right to vote for a leader just because we believe in a living God.
I do not know anybody who wants to abolish religion.
I want to abolish religion and I think that many more people should. There is nothing that a church can do that people cant do better through purely secular means. Religion has been holding back society for thousands of years.
It is time to embrace the Age of Reason.
We just don't want any of your as.s backwards religious beliefs injected into any of our politics of social policies, when the majority of religious claims have been proven false or a based on prejudice. Wha wha.
You, like every American, are free to believe in whatever religious myths you want. It's when you nutters seek to force everyone else to believe in your particular brand of nuttery that we run into trouble. When you seek to forcee your religious myths into our secular laws and our secular schools, you will be beat back.
If you don't like the First Amendment, get the fudge out. Religion has every right to exist, and I and many others will gladly fight any attempt to suppress the rights of others.
>>>" It's when you nutters seek to force everyone else to believe in your particular brand of nuttery that we run into trouble."
Is this not always the call of the opposition to pretty much every political issue and matter than comes into society? From issues dealing with Faith to issues of the environment, military, even the war on drugs and fatty foods. Your statement can be said to just about all of us in society.
Well, all of us who spend time on Blogs such as this. The rest of America are sheep and really do not care.
I didn't say that no one had the right to worship as they please. They do.
It is just irrational to do so. I think that only after people stop believing in fairy tales will the human race advance as a species. Religion is responsible for most of the wars and idiocy in the world. Simple as that.
That's not what you said initially. There's a massive difference between what you're saying now and saying that you want to abolish religion.
Ah the war on poor Christians.
The United States is a terrible place for straight, white, christian men. They're never given a fair shake.
Christian churches are being censored all across the land. The gospel isn't allowed on television, especially on sunday mornings.
If only America was free enough to allow an openly Chrstian man to be elected to the white house instead of forcing political candidates to keep their Christianity secret.
Let's look at this a little closer Mark –
We have perfectly valid science showing folks are born gay, and that they are not diseased, ill, sick, disordered, etc. They are simply born gay – like being born left-handed or green-eyed. It doesn't make it wrong, just a normal natural variant. And according to the 14th amendment, gays, being US citizens, have the same civil rights as us striaght folks. Yet, time after time, you ignorant fundiot nutters seek to legislate legalized discrimination against gay folks because you think your version of a god wants you to think gays are icky. Hell, you even try to pass constîtutional amendments against them.
Also, the theory of evolution is the single most confirmed theory in all science. We have literal mountains of evidence and facts supporting evolution. And time after time, we see scientificlly ignorant fundiot nutters trying to get their brand of religious myths and nuttery taught as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution.
You said, "If one doubts the "war on religion" all you have to do is read the posts on sites like this one."
There is no "war on religion" in the US. Pushing back against the intrusion of your delusion in society is hardly a war. It's self defense.
You said, "If the 14% that has no religious affiliation or beliefs had their way, the 86% that has "at least some religious connection" would be abolished from existence."
You are free to believe whatever nonsense you want. Stupidity isn't illegal, and nobody is trying to outlaw it. You seem to confuse your individual right to believe and worship as you see fit, with your perceived duty to force that bullshit on others.
Just because you are free to believe whatever you want to believe, doesn't mean anyone else has to believe it too. If you think that your imaginary friend doesn't approve of something, feel free not to do that, whatever "that" is. If you think your imaginary friend doesn't approve of homosexuality, you better not engage in it. You don't get to prohibit anyone else from engaging in it. If you feel your imaginary friend doesn't want you to consume pork, or beef, or alcohol, or caffeine, or Rice Krispies, feel free not to do so, but you don't get to tell anyone else they can't either.
Freedom of religion gives you the right to believe as you see fit, but that right is equally available to everyone. Your religion may place additional restrictions on you, and you alone. In a civilized country, your religion can never place any restrictions on anyone else, nor can it provide freedoms to you that are not available to anyone else.
You said, "Also we will not give up our right to vote for a leader just because we believe in a living God."
Again, you are free to have any imaginary friend you want.
Yep, because twenty teenagers posting anonymously under different aliases on CNN make an army in a pool of 300 million. People need to get a grip on the relevence of these posts. If you're bored post what you do or don't believe and have fun, but don't assume anything here means anything.
>>>" Yet, time after time, you ignorant fundiot nutters seek to legislate legalized discrimination against gay folks because you think your version of a god wants you to think gays are icky. Hell, you even try to pass constîtutional amendments against them."
Hi Wonk. First, you do not automatically know if do or do not support the LGBT community. We have Christians who are Gay and Republicans who are Gay as well. Do not forget that the over turning of Don't Ask Dont't tell, were the Gay and Lesbian Republicans. Also remember it was not until after the Republican primaries that Obama flip flopped on Gay marriage.
You seem to think that all Christians interpret the scriptures the same when if that were true we would have a single Christian church. In those Christians we have Gay and Lesbians who have a Faith and have been called to serve as pastors and ministers in Christian churches. So, when you make blanket statements you do a disservice to these Christians who are Gay and Christian at the same time.
Mark wrote, " First, you do not automatically know if do or do not support the LGBT community. We have Christians who are Gay and Republicans who are Gay as well."
Hence, the reason I wrote, " time after time, you ignorant fundiot nutters seek to legislate legalized discrimination against gay folks because you think your version of a god wants you to think gays are icky." Instead of writing all Christians.
And if folks like you don't want to be associated with these nutters, perhaps you folks should do more to demonstrate to the rational world that you disavow these ignorant cretins.
The argument isn't really about not voting for someone with religion; it's about religious candidates or elected officials not having the const itional right to make government decisions that place one religious belief over another. Plenty of "minority Christians" and people of other faiths have no trouble with issues like gay marriage and abortion according to their religious beliefs. Any move to take away these options from them is a suppression of their religious freedom, pure and simple.
I don't want to abolish religion. I just want what the Founding Fathers wanted: to keep it out of public discourse.
Mark from Middle River
If there are gay and lesbian Christians who belong and even serve in Churches that accept their se xuality as natural, and not being sinful, the government has no business legislating against their rights to marry, correct?
@ Cal – Game. Set. Match.
I would love to see the end of religion but I wouldn't vote to abolish it. I am also a non-smoker and was disturbed to see the treatment of smokers in last decade – yeah it's bad for you but we're supposed to live in a free society where others specifically DON'T decide what's good for you.
Same with seatbelts in cars – excellent idea but laws forcing people to wear them? That's a bit much, and it is my personal protest to pay a 2-3 yearly fee to the government in "taxes" when i get pulled over for not wearing it.
It's happening now with healthy foods versus candy, etc.... banning large soft drinks in NY? How does that makes sense in a free society, forcing others to live the way you think is best?
So while I find religion absurd, harmful and ancient, I wouldn't abolish it. I'm hoping people see the wisdom of a life without it of their own volition, with a little prodding from me.
@End Religion – In theory, I agree with you – but in a real world it breaks down. Let's look at smoking (and for the record, i was a smoker). You should have a right to smoke. You should not have a right to smoke where it affects other people. Their right to not be affected by second-hand smoke trumps your individual right to smoke. The other problem is that smokers are often use a disproportionate proportion of health care services. So just as should have a right to smoke, I should have a right to not pay for your health care.
Now let's look at seatbelts (and motorcycle helmets) (and for the record, I was a Paramedic 30 years ago). I found very few dead people in cars wearing seat belts. Severely injured? Sure, but most were living – this was before airbags. What we learned from crash tests was that unrestrained person in a car crash became a lethal weapon. They would impact other persons, who were seat belted in, and cause severe or fatal injuries. A driver not wearing a seatbelt in even a minor accident will frequently loose control of their vehicle and crash into other vehicles, injuring those passangers.
Without helmets, many motorcyclists don't die, but suffer profound head & spine injuries. They end up on welfare and or in care centers for the rest of their lives.
Amen, Ancient Texan! You hit the nail right on the head. If they want to declare war on Christianity, we must fight back and fight back hard. We must never forget whose we are.
@ Evangelical – again, you nutters are free to believe in whatever make believe skydaddies you want. The problem is when you ignorant fundiots try and force your bizarre religious myths into our secular laws, and into our public schools.
I don't get what the freaking problem is...believe in who you want, worship as you please, BUT base NO laws upon those religious beliefs!!
NOT that difficult a concept to grasp! Sheesh!
@ancient Texan – why don't you go back to fox news channel, where you belong – some of your whcked out comments are downright disturbing. We went BLUE for this go around – Austin & So did San Antonio -
I hear you Primewonk, I simply do not agree we should be allowing the final end result of money spent to combat some other issue to follow back up the chain of events and outlaw what might lead to it. There are no easy answers, but my stance begins with the individual's initial right to live in freedom.
"Let's look at smoking (and for the record, i was a smoker)."
Definitely an issue with second hand smoke. I was thinking about the chastizing they received as smoking were suddenly a sin. I think NY has a law about not being able to smoke outside in a park. Some of this stuff is just plain silly and amounts to one's moralization of someone else. And I can't stand smoking, but if people want to choose that risk it is fine with me. I don't want to hear about higher medical costs. What people eat, smoke, drink and their extracurricular activities all affect these costs. Are we going to outlaw everything that might lead to higher medical costs? These things are personal freedoms that are being restricted against our will.
"What we learned from crash tests was that unrestrained person in a car crash became a lethal weapon."
Wonk, you can use this argument to justify taking anyone's freedom for any reason. In an accident many thing that could be in a car can become a missile. Again, seatbelts are a good idea but there is no reason to create a law forcing our decision to wear it.
"Without helmets, many motorcyclists don't die, but suffer profound head & spine injuries. They end up on welfare and or in care centers for the rest of their lives."
Helmets, good idea, but it should be the rider's choice to take on this risk. Losing one's job could lead to welfare; do we make firing people illegal? Plenty of stuff can lead to welfare or care centers.
USSR had an official atheist gov't. Stalin was a monster. I do see the day when religion will be banned, but people are people and will continue to fight and hate each other, atheist do not have the answers
There has never been any attempt ever to impose state atheism here or in any Western democracy.
Your assertions about Stalin and the"USSR" are false. Stalin was a monster, their government was not atheist as you claim. No one has all the answers. However believing in bronze age fairy tales and worshipping imaginary deities of any kind does not help or progress humankind. Sciences have provided more answers about human kind and the way we think and work than any religious book ever had. That's a fact.
I'm sorry, "Pedro", but your assertions regarding atheism and the USSR are unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent truths is: "TOTAL FAIL".
I see that you repeat these unfounded statements with high frequency. Perhaps the following book can help you:
I'm Told I Have Dementia: What You Can Do... Who You Can Turn to...
Pedro, the United States has a secular government. This means religion has no official state role and all citizens are free to worship (or not worship) as we choose.
It seems that in the country of freedom, you have chosen the slavery of fear and ignorance. What a waste.
Nazi Germany had an officially Christian government, and Hitler as also a monster. What both Hitler and Stalin's governments shared was that they were both dictatorships. The USA isn't a dictatorship, and we can all agree that any dictatorship that ever managed to take over our government would be bad, be they atheist or religious in nature.
Atheists do not have all the answers. Unlike theists, they do not pretend to.
I, and most atheists don't want religion banned, we want people to have a personal relationship with reality all on their own.
USSR had an official atheist gov't. Stalin was a monster. I do see the day when religion will be banned, but people are people and will continue to fight and hate each other, atheist do not have the answers
WOW pedro..educate yourself. You are amazingly ignorant.
A lot many white male Christians voted Romney simply because Obama was painted as a black, muslim, kenyan. Next election maybe Joe Biden would be the presidential candidate, and that would be the funeral of Republican Party because those negative votes won't be there for Republican Party.
If society was so radically affected by gays coming out of the closet, wait until all of the closet atheists are able to voice their thoughts without being marginalized by their "sky fairy"-believing family and neighbors.
A BIG change is coming...
The average person can do their own survey within their circle of co-worers and friends and see how many "truly believe" it is a lot less than most realize...give it time....people will be less afraid to speak out. Rather than leanring to respect others freedom, the christards are becoming more stubborn and angry..thus they weaken the GOP even more....more "white" people like me will be leaving God's Own Party. I will vote for a Democrat any day over a religo nut screaming abortion rights, anti gay and gods will. People are free to be ignorant in their personal lives...they are not free to impose that on anothers.
"sensitive exposures and providing platforms" (sorry)
no need to apologize to us. You may want to apologize to anyone who knows you and will be forced to spend time dealing with your insanity, however.
CNN MANAGEMENT: KUDOS for your support of Soledad O' Brien's efforts at initiating sensitive eposures and providing playform. Adult survivors are eager to spread the story and stop the harm to children. Also Kudos for your support of Dr. Sanjay Gupta. No doubt the interaction between both segments will open eyes and increase awareness of underground social poisons. Now, the addressing of such ills was traditionally part of the Democrat versus Rrepublican platform correct? If Obama was REALLY as sincere and seeking higher public office to answer a "higher calling," then no doubt he would have shown ample ability and willingness to list all such things out specically and with great details in viable approach. I rest my case - great job and please help keep Soledad and Dr. Gupta diligent and brave. They will do great work and feel deep satisfaction from it. Tell Soledad that I think she's cute (but don't tell "street smart" I said it - she might feel jealous - just kidding :) Merci beaucoup, Lance D. :)
"I rest my case"
ha ha ha – nice try – EPIC FAIL, emotidork! lol
I'm sorry. I neither speak or understand the language of "Batshit Crazy Nutter". Perhaps you could pop out and find someone to translate?
Yeah, that post was a bit ....all over the board. :)
Easier to go back to my studies this morning than to attempt to translate that post.
down with big gubmint!!
I find it remarkable that atheists vote for Obama, or any Democrat. Look what happened at the convention. Dems are just as religious as Reps, it's just the Dems try and represent a more liberal social stance – being accepting of others with diverse beliefs and behaviors. But they throw that out the window when it comes to other aspects of our lives (like how to spend our money, what to drive, and what to eat, etc.). Voting for Dems is just voting for one big brother over another (Govt. over God). As a person who was a born-again, baptized Christian that became an atheist only after many years of contemplation and research, I realize that the only way to be truly open-minded is to criticize your own beliefs, not those of others. If you truly are an atheist who loves freedom then Libertarianism is the true path that represents atheists who truly are open-minded and arrived at their world view after careful research and objective reasoning. So atheists voting for the Democratic party is voting against their own interests. The Libertarian party is much closer to the atheist point of view.
"""The Libertarian party is much closer to the atheist point of view."""
This isn't really the issue. Although my views are more in line with Jill Stein (Green Party), voting for her would not have prevented Romney from buying the white house.
Atheists vote with the Democratic party not out of any sense of loyalty to the Democrats, but because they are voting against the Republican party. If they voted Libertarian, they would undercut the Democrats, and wind up with Republicans in office, which is what they want least. In no case will they actually elect a Libertarian candidate, and they know that very well, so they hold their nose and vote for whomever has the best chance at beating the Republican in any given race. Usually, that candidate is a Democrat.
Please don't use the word 'they' because you do not know the mindset of every atheist.
Wacky me. I voted for the candidate with the best ideas for the entire nation.
The republicans offered the same disastrous platform that they always do: Cut taxes for the rich, let the middle class foot the bill for rest of the country, and let the ever-increasing numbers of poor go to hell. Oh yeah, and do everything possible to treat women like sub-humans.
At least the democrats seem to understand that ridiculously low tax rates for the extremely wealthy do not create jobs, that our soldiers and seniors are NOT freeloaders, and that women comprise over half the population and that many, if not most of them are tax-payers. I'm good with that.
The tax rate issue is interesting but in the end I fear it is going to be accountants verses accountants. If we are supposed to be treated equally under the law would not a equal, across the board rate be equal? While the rich do have more money I do not feel that they should be penalized more for their success.
Mark From Middle River
I think that the argument is that the very rich can shelter their earning in ways that the rest of us cannot which results in their paying a much lower tax rate than the middle class. Surely you do not agree that the super rich should pay at a lower rate than the middle class?
I think the National Atheist party would be closer than Libertarians, but I understand your point.
I live in a state where my vote for President is virtually insignificant, so I can afford to vote for a third party candidate. In states that matter, an atheist may prefer to limit their vote to the two candidates with a reasonable chance of winning. This would cause them to choose the candidate who panders less to the Christian political body.
" If we are supposed to be treated equally under the law would not a equal, across the board rate be equal? While the rich do have more money I do not feel that they should be penalized more for their success."
Yes, the "rate" should be equal as in deciding on 35% or 38.5% for everyone, including capital gains. The problem is that the wealthy tend to complain because 38% of $1,000,000 is $380,000 but for someone making only $20,000 a year their tax would be $7,600 and the rich hate that. What they fail to keep in mind is the story of the poor woman giving her very last coin to the temple, 100% of what she had, while the rich man gave a bag of coins, far more than the woman gave, and yet he was giving only a tiny fraction of what he had so Jesus pointed out the woman was the one truely giving more. It is greed and selfishness that keeps the rich from remembering this, but the landslide for Obama hopefully will remind them.
Trajk, you show a history of making bad life choices. Libertarianism is just one more in your long list.
Better than being a hippy, liberal d.ouchebag.
So the sane (Atheists) and the insane (religious) alike voted for President Obama. OK, all this means is that a lot of people voted for him because they agree with his issues. Why bring religion into this?
There is nothing that religion can do that cant be done by purely secular means. (and usually better and with less money skimmed off the top by a guy in a dress.)
The religious aren't insane, they're just a bit out of grasp with reality. It's like with people who are superst itious, just thinking that black cats are bad luck doesn't bother me, but anyone killing them because of this belief is just nuts. The crazy Christians are just the ones who go too far.
I agree with John. The religious are like kids pretending to be airplanes. No need to demean their sanity. Play along, say "That's nice" and tell them you are a little choo-choo. It may help them gain perspective.
Great to see. A world and government entirely devoid of religion and rational thought neglect is a wonderful proposition. Imagine a world of reality, rational thought and common sense, as opposed to those who live with fairy tales and thinking they can effect/change the world by talking to themselves. (How is that working out?)
Quahog, RI, if Christianity never existed ...
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.