The political polarization of religious and non-religious people in America

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why is this?

The two main political parties, by the way, weren't nearly as divided even 30 years ago by religious beliefs (or lack thereof) as they are today. There were plenty of Democrats who were regular church-goers just a generation ago, moreso than the current divide (Of course, I realize that the religious vs non-religious divide really applies only to white non-Hispanic Americans, as there are plenty of churchgoing Democrats when you look at racial and ethnic minorities.... )

What changed? Is this a result of the "Culture Wars" or the growing urban-rural divide between the parties?

[TJ in Oregon]

It's mostly a result of the culture wars. Quite a bit of American culture has changed over the last half century and thus politics will be divided for the forseable future between those who agree and disagree with those changes. These types of issues also tend to be ones with a more black-and-white feel to opinions on them, as opposed to taxes which at least in theory lends itself to an easier compromise.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It's mostly a result of the culture wars. Quite a bit of American culture has changed over the last half century and thus politics will be divided for the forseable future between those who agree and disagree with those changes. These types of issues also tend to be ones with a more black-and-white feel to opinions on them, as opposed to taxes which at least in theory lends itself to an easier compromise.

So to go further with this...from what I understand, the "Culture Wars" are dominated (on both sides) by upper-middle class white activists and organizers. Make sense, since affluent people aren't as concerned with economic issues and daily needs as the working class in general, no?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Evangelical blacks are by far the most Democratic voter group.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Evangelical blacks are by far the most Democratic voter group.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I think the reason that there's a strong religious left with blacks and Latinos and not with white evangelicals is the social message of the church. Black Protestant churches tend to be focused on social justice and civil rights; they're generally pro-life and divided on same-sex marriage, but are solidly in step (or to the left of) with the Democratic Party. A similar case exists with Latinos Catholics (and is why white Catholics are still much more Democratic than white Protestants, even if both voted for Romney).

Meanwhile, white evangelical churches, despite some social justice elements, are more focused on individual salvation; hence, why they vote heavily for a party with Social Darwinist views.

[bedstuy]

There have been a few big trends in the past 30-40 years. 

-Fundamentalist evangelicals increased as a percentage of protestants.  So, a Christian is less likely to be a wishy washy County club type denomination like Episcopalian.

-White protestants are a shrinking group as a percentage of the nation.  So, Democrats can continue on with a coalition of non-whites and white liberals. 

-Atheists/non-believers are an increasing group as a percentage of the nation.  So, this bolsters the correlation as most non-believers are not Republicans. 

-Christianity, especially evangelical protestantism and conservative Catholicism have become more overtly political, partially due to the abortion and gay marriage debates.  This obviously contributes. 

-Republicans have purged the moderates in their party.  So, there are few Republicans that attempt to appeal to non-evangelical whites. 

-Democrats lost the South.  So, Democrats had no reason to try to appeal to evangelical whites.

[All Along The Watchtower]

(and is why white Catholics are still much more Democratic than white Protestants, even if both voted for Romney).

Don't let BRTD know this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

(and is why white Catholics are still much more Democratic than white Protestants, even if both voted for Romney).

That's because the numbers are heavily skewed by the South.

(and is why white Catholics are still much more Democratic than white Protestants, even if both voted for Romney).

Don't let BRTD know this.

How do you think Catholic-turned-Protestants and Protestant-turned-Catholics voted?

[DC Al Fine]

(and is why white Catholics are still much more Democratic than white Protestants, even if both voted for Romney).

A large part of this is explained by the large numbers of people who identify as Catholic but never go to mass. White church going Catholics vote GOP about as much as their White Protestant counterparts.

[memphis]

This guy thought using religion for political advantage would be a dandy idea:

And then along came this guy who was much more effective at implementing it:

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

(and is why white Catholics are still much more Democratic than white Protestants, even if both voted for Romney).

A large part of this is explained by the large numbers of people who identify as Catholic but never go to mass. White church going Catholics vote GOP about as much as their White Protestant counterparts.

Maybe mainline Protestants, but certainly not as Republican as evangelical Protestants.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It seems that basically only olds go to Catholic Mass regularly.

[DC Al Fine]

It seems that basically only olds go to Catholic Mass regularly.

In attracting non-olds. In my grandparent's parish, there are some young families but not a lot. They seem more dedicated than the cultural Catholic oldies.

For attracting younger (<60) people: Mainline Protestants<Catholics<Evangelical Protestants.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Some mainline churches are actually pretty good at that. For example this church is Methodist: http://iamembrace.com

My parents' church also has a relatively high number of youngs too especially considering the city it's in.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

BRTD, is that the church that schedules its services based upon the area code it's in?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD, is that the church that schedules its services based upon the area code it's in?

Yes. If a church here did that they'd start at 6:12PM, which is actually a nice kind of quirky touch.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

BRTD, is that the church that schedules its services based upon the area code it's in?

Yes. If a church here did that they'd start at 6:12PM, which is actually a nice kind of quirky touch.

You say quirky, I say pretentious and difficult to schedule around. (It is, admittedly, quirky as well as those things.) Then again the fact that they have services in the evening at all is a blessing to those of us who, er, really aren't what you'd call morning people, shall we say.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD, is that the church that schedules its services based upon the area code it's in?

Yes. If a church here did that they'd start at 6:12PM, which is actually a nice kind of quirky touch.

You say quirky, I say pretentious and difficult to schedule around. (It is, admittedly, quirky as well as those things.) Then again the fact that they have services in the evening at all is a blessing to those of us who, er, really aren't what you'd call morning people, shall we say.

Incidentally there is a church here that I have gone to that also has its services at 6:05PM, the reasoning basically being that if the target demographic intends to go somewhere at 6PM it's quite likely they'll be a little late (true).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

BRTD, is that the church that schedules its services based upon the area code it's in?

Yes. If a church here did that they'd start at 6:12PM, which is actually a nice kind of quirky touch.

You say quirky, I say pretentious and difficult to schedule around. (It is, admittedly, quirky as well as those things.) Then again the fact that they have services in the evening at all is a blessing to those of us who, er, really aren't what you'd call morning people, shall we say.

It's not uncommon around here for churches to offer both a late morning and an early evening service.  However, if you can't make an 11AM or so morning service, that suggests you need to not stay up so late.  I say that not as a party-pooper, but because it's a bad idea to have a sleep schedule that is wildly different on the weekend from the weekdays.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

BRTD, is that the church that schedules its services based upon the area code it's in?

Yes. If a church here did that they'd start at 6:12PM, which is actually a nice kind of quirky touch.

You say quirky, I say pretentious and difficult to schedule around. (It is, admittedly, quirky as well as those things.) Then again the fact that they have services in the evening at all is a blessing to those of us who, er, really aren't what you'd call morning people, shall we say.

It's not uncommon around here for churches to offer both a late morning and an early evening service.  However, if you can't make an 11AM or so morning service, that suggests you need to not stay up so late.  I say that not as a party-pooper, but because it's a bad idea to have a sleep schedule that is wildly different on the weekend from the weekdays.

It's more that the buses in my area are horrible on the weekends and don't start running until halfway through the 10.30 services, and so I have to walk or bike--which is sometimes troublesome in the winter months. I stay up late pretty much every night because I'm a university senior and don't have morning classes, and the weekends are when I do most of my homework.

I am however going to an 8 am Ash Wednesday service (the noon and 4 pm ones would cut into classes, in one of which I have to deliver a presentation, and I'm going to be working on a team project at the time that I'd have to get going to the 7 pm), and as such will be going to sleep as early as I can manage tonight and tomorrow.

[DemPGH]

At this point in time, I think this has to do largely with two things. First, it's pretty much established scientifically that religious people are more likely to be conservatives and Republicans. That certainly is not universal or absolute, but rather "most likely." Okay.

So, I think 1) in the last 30 years we've obviously seen religion merge with the political right. That actually has driven people away from church, the mixing of right wing politics and faith - Jimmy Carter said a lot on the subject actually, and in one of his books he said it's why he finally left whatever church it was that he belonged to (Baptist?- there's a strain of that that's radically conservative), which was at one point, he said, unthinkable. And I also know people who have left church because of it. Undoubtedly, at some level, it would have to challenge their faith. 

2) I want to say that people who identify with the left are less likely to see a need to follow a strong leader and tradition for tradition's sake; again, not an absolute, but I see liberalism as naturally skeptical and also critical of spiritual leaders and tradition and so on.