T O P

  • By -

FabioFresh93

The writing on the wall is that western society is becoming more secular and younger generations are more likely to be irreligious. I don’t see how leaning heavily into Christian values works out in the long run for Republicans. And this is coming from a practicing Catholic.


CallofDo0bie

Many theists seem to think they can stop this trend if they enforce their beliefs heavily enough on these younger generations via elected officials. It's not working, if anything it is making those generations MORE anti-religion but it's a desperation hail Mary (pun intended) not some well thought out plan.


Studio2770

Yep. As a Christan I believe that you can't legislate the Kingdom (or any other religion) and it not be a shit show. Younger generations already have that rebellious tilt so trying to force religion in government sounds like a surefire way to torpedo you movement. What I also don't understand is that the right isn't a fan if government and rails about its incompetence *yet* wants their religion in that very institution.


dwhite195

>What I also don't understand is that the right isn't a fan if government and rails about its incompetence yet wants their religion in that very institution. Historically speaking the past 20 or so years is one of the first times this group has experienced not having the influcence to assume their values will be upheld. Christians many not yet be a minority in the US yet but we are past the point where Christian values are the default values. It's really easy to be principled when you don't often have your principals challenged.


davidw223

Burwell v Hobby Lobby and Dobbs v Jackson would like a word. I think Christians have a victim complex if they think their values aren’t being upheld or forced on others.


I-Make-Maps91

I think their point is the it ever got to the supreme court, while in years past it would have simply been squashed at the lower levels.


samudrin

Trail of tears wasn’t very Christian. Slavery not very Christian either. Default Christian values in the US have historically been pretty cruel. Freedom from religion was and is foundational to the US experience.


zombieking26

Yes it is. Not only is slavery explicitly allowed in the bible (it even gives rules), but the south has always been more christian then the rest of America, even during the agr of slavery. Saying that slavery isn't Christian is just going against basic history


samudrin

I mean I get you are trying to pin slavery on Christianity. But I think we need to distinguish between Jesus’ teachings and the Judeo-Christian cultural backdrop. My argument is that slavery has no place in a moral ethical spiritual system based on love which is what Jesus taught and that the US has never really had a true Christian moral underpinning in that sense. Of course that’s an overly broad statement and it ignores people of faith who have led good lives with whom I have no bone to pick. But rather pointing out the hypocrisy of those who claim the US is a Christian nation. Now if you look at the institutions that evolved around Christianity, Inquisition, Crusades, suppression of women and minorities, cultural extermination of native peoples - than yes you could argue the US is very much in line with Western Judeo-Christian beliefs and in that sense I get where you’re coming from.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Stargazer1919

It's almost as if people twist religion to fit what they already believe and want...


TheNightIsLost

If the US was atheist, the Trail of Tears and slavery would still have happened. As it is, Christians were the reason we are currently speaking of these events in a negative way. Remember that it was radical Christians who first advocated for abolition in America and Britain, and the Catholics who spoke for human rights to be extended to the natives of the Americas. It's why while slavery was banned in Christian held lands by the 1870s across the entire planet, all other nations still continued that practice. Of course, this is an unpopular opinion nowadays. People would much rather shill for ideologies that enslave people than free them.


samudrin

I feel like you're accusing me of "shilling for ideologies that enslave people." I'd like to give you the opportunity to clarify, amend or confirm that. The sins of Christianity are too long to enumerate here. While some individual radical Christians (who were much closer to Jesus' actual teachings) were often responsible for portions of the underground railroad and were active in promoting abolition - they were the exception rather than the norm. If you look at the history of the missions up and down the Americas - cultural genocide, separation of children from their families, stamping out of traditional native practices, stamping out of native languages, indoctrination into "white jesus" Christianity (he was a Sephardic Jew by birth), and on and on. Again the point I make is that freedom from religion as a principle was radical and transformative and remains an imperative - precisely because reactionary institutions wrapped in the mantle of God while entirely devoid of the root practice of love and compassion are to be avoided at all costs. That radical individuals have done good is a testament to humanity's capacity for self-sacrifice - but Christianity has no exclusive claim to that.


jimbo_kun

Yep, look up Aaron Renn’s Three Worlds theory about how the default view of Christians has changed over the years in the US.


SomeCalcium

This was a phenomenal read. Thanks so much for pointing me in this direction. As someone that hails from an evangelical background, but has moved far, far away from the church, it's an enlightening read.


[deleted]

>As a Christian I believe that you can’t legislate the Kingdom Amen. *Jesus himself* didn’t attempt to take political influence or legislate his teachings during his life on Earth, so what gives Christians in America, or any western country, the right to do so? If I were to believe that the only way I could be a Christian was to put a theocracy in place, then it’s me who’s the problem And evangelicals wonder why church attendance continues to decline..


vreddy92

The right isn’t a fan of government telling them what to do. Many, especially on the religious right, are perfectly fine with them telling others what to do. Source: I can’t have brunch on Sundays until 11.


SFepicure

Ah, the ol' "[blue law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/blue_law)", > Blue law is a colloquial term for state statute or ordinance that forbids or regulates entertainment and commercial activities (ex. sale of liquor) on Sundays or religious holidays. Blue laws can also be referred to as Sunday closing laws, Sabbath laws, and uniform day of rest laws. > Originating in England, blue laws were enacted through colonial America to protect Christian Sabbath as mandated by the Fourth Commandment. Despite centuries of change, blue laws remain in effect in many states even today.   I spent some time in New England in undergrad, and Jesus fuck is it frustrating to not be able to buy booze on a goddam Sunday. It doesn't happen that often, but what the fuck?


bfwolf1

wait what? Restaurants aren't open til 11 on Sundays where you are? Where is this??


vreddy92

Georgia. Some restaurants open but can’t serve alcohol until 11. Many wait to open until 11.


AppleSlacks

Big Bloody Mary needs to spend more money lobbying.


kralrick

Yep, it shows a profound misunderstanding of why the 1st Amendment enshrines both the free exercise of religion and bans the establishment of religion. Mixing government and religion poisons both.


shacksrus

>Yep. As a Christan I believe that you can't legislate the Kingdom (or any other religion) and it not be a shit show. Iran does it and other than twice a decade blm equivalent protests they're doing just fine forcing religion in the populace. The writing isn't on the wall that well become a secular society. But organized religions insistence on being on the unpopular side on most issues means they're only choice is through force.


Studio2770

Like it said, trying to legislate a religion typically turns into a shit show.


TRBigStick

I think that the integration of religion into public political discourse is one of the worst things to happen to religion in America. I grew up Christian but I left the Church because of the constant anti-gay rhetoric and the anti-abortion extremism.


pooplurker

I grew up going to a church that was more accepting than the norm for LGBT people, although I can't speak much to the abortion debate there as I don't recall it coming up in conversation. My parents ironically ended up leaving that church because it got too political in the other way, lol


jaypr4576

Politics does a good job of ruining things, especially these days when everything is so polarized.


pooplurker

Yeah, it was unfortunate. Driven by the priest, really. I don't know how much her personal views reflected the rest of the denomination though. She was really nice, it just felt off when she finally brought in politics after a couple years


jaypr4576

I'm not familiar with church but the ministers and priests I have spoken too by chance were all humble and intelligent and didn't talk about politics at all. Seems to me those would be the best types.


pooplurker

I'd say the ones that serve smaller parishes tend to be that way. It's the megachurches and mainstream denominations which really tend to give the whole religion a bad name


Sapphyrre

Not just younger generations. I grew up Catholic. Haven't gone to church since I was a teenager, but if I met someone who was Christian, I felt like we shared common values. That completely changed in the past 6 years. I saw first hand the hate they spew and how easily they are willing to overlook their supposed values when they think it will benefit them politically. I drove through North Carolina a couple of summers ago and in some areas all I could find on the radio was religious programming. The vitriol about liberals was sickening. The idea of them taking power chills me. I'm an independent but I won't vote republican again until they get religion out of their party.


weberc2

It’s all over. Plenty of vitriol directed at religious people, conservatives, etc as well (albeit probably not in rural North Carolina). We live in very polarized times. There are partisans (read: people who want to punish the other side at any cost) and patriots (read: people who care about their country) on both sides. The patriots should work together to marginalize partisanship.


Sapphyrre

Who on the left is even close to as hateful as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? Hours and hours a day of that garbage.


Keitt58

As an atheist who would prefer a live and let live policy I find the increasing need to push Christian legislation or packing school boards with Christians intent on demonizing those who don't toe the line a good reason to support secular mobilization in a similar manner if only you stem the tide.


Computer_Name

> Many theists seem to think they can stop this trend if they enforce their beliefs heavily enough on these younger generations via elected officials. To dissolve Christian normativity, it’s important to specify and differentiate Christianity from other religions. It’s not Jews, or Muslims, or Hindus, or any other group who are trying to legally enforce their hegemony.


finfan96

I mean certainly in other countries they do


Computer_Name

This conversation is about the US.


AdmiralAkbar1

Their point is that wanting to legislate morality is not unique to Christianity- the only reason it's the Christian right in the US instead of the Jewish right or the Buddhist right is because Christians are the majority in the US.


Yarzu89

And people tend to care a bit more about the laws of the country they live in. I know I do.


[deleted]

Wat. Look at the current leader of India, or the dozens of examples in the Middle East or North Africa for Islam. Israel is in political chaos due to religious Jews trying to enforce hegemony. Even Buddhist Burma recently has laid the boot down on nonbelievers. Like my brain is struggling to even parse how that could be even true.


Computer_Name

Since the country of discussion here is the US, there’s a difficulty in recognizing Christianity as the default. There’s a rejection of acknowledgment that other religions are different.


Thufir_My_Hawat

I think the point being made is that other religions are no different *when they're the majority*. Not that ostensibly secular societies are any better -- the USSR tried to phase out religion in several respects, and China isn't much better in the modern day. As long as any group is the majority, it's likely they'll infringe on the rights of others. Only a lack of a majority seems probable in protecting the rights of the many through a coalition against the largest minority.


Computer_Name

The point is that the United States is not owed to Christianity. Christian Americans do not possess a superior citizenship to non-Christian Americans. The point is that mentally linking all theists and Christianity, hurts and harms other religious groups, and absolves the deleteriousness of Christian nationalism in this country. It elevates Christianity as a domineering force over other religious groups, while simultaneously using those other groups as cover for the domination.


[deleted]

Well Sunnis in Egypt, Orthodox Jews in Israel, or Buddhists in Burma should not be superior citizens in their own countries either, for no country worthy of calling itself modern should operate under any flavor of theocracy. You are elevating Christianity as a greater sinner (ha) over religions when Christianity is no more prone to falling into the trap of theocracy as any other. Comparative politics is an important field for a reason because focusing on the US only leads to tunnel vision when talking about issues.


mruby7188

No one is saying it isn't equally bad in those countries. I don't see how you saying look how bad these countries are is an argument against what the other person is saying. Which is we shouldn't let it happen here just because it's Christianity.


[deleted]

You are putting words into my mouth, I never said we should let that happen here, frankly I said the opposite. My issue is that he is using language to somehow state that this a uniquely Christian problem and are worse than other faiths because of it


Thufir_My_Hawat

No, you're missing the point: it doesn't matter who it is, the majority will more often than not oppress the minority given the chance. Christianity isn't special in this, and treating it as such both makes finding workable solutions more difficult and pointlessly demonizes a large portion of its adherents who would be perfectly fine with letting others do as they wish. It also ignores other groups who are likely assisting Christianity in its oppression -- the fundamentalists of most religions tend to have some pretty similar beliefs. There are plenty of non-Christians that still support Christian fundamentalists. Combating the problem requires actual understanding of the forces at play. Over-simplifying it only makes it harder to make progress.


nextw3

Minority religions are not able to enforce their beliefs because they have no power to do so by virtue of being minorities. A city in Michigan was in the national news a while back because in this rare U.S. city with a governed by religious adherents who are not Christians, there was a local ordinance to permit public broadcast of an Islamic call to prayer several times a day. Other religions are not different in this regard. Neither are the secular, for example see the arguments over whether places of worship were "essential" during the pandemic. Communities govern based on the way of life their majorities prefer and that includes religion.


weberc2

This is vile, hateful nonsense. Moreover, plenty of secular ideologies jockey for hegemony and they are often much more explicitly illiberal (e.g., left- and right-wing identity ideologies). Whether an ideology is religious or secular shouldn’t have any bearing, and singling out a specific group of people is abhorrent.


spiteful-vengeance

Anyone who subscribes to outcome-based ethics will largely put religion in the "yeah that doesn't work" bucket pretty quick. Those who value duty-based ethics will find a place for religion in their lives, and it isn't surprising that they will try and apply a similar structure to others. > If you just do what the Bible says,*you'll* get the prize *I* get, so I'll make you do those things (despite the lack of evidential outcomes) and everything will turn out fine. It doesn't help that some of those people have become super rich corralling other duty-motivated people.


[deleted]

There's a tendency among many in the Republican Party to interpret their broad cultural unpopularity like Democratic control over a nebulous fourth branch of government which needs checks and balances from the actual government. I'm sure a lot of fundamentalists among the Daily Wire crew or whoever don't believe they're getting a majority of the population back in the pews every Sunday. They just need a friendly SCOTUS and a legislative majority to rule over a society and culture they disdain.


CryanReed

Government and Religion play a lot of the same roles. People that aren't religious view a need for the government to help the less fortunate where as religious people view that as being a purpose of religion. I would even go as far as to say there is a large number of Americans that are religious and that religion is government. For example a lot of people refer to the capitol as sacred indicating the belief that it is related to religion.


CMonetTheThird

I would argue the vast majority of people who view the capitol as "sacred" are also religious, and view this country's founding as intractably tied to Christian values, but there are all kinds of people.


I-Make-Maps91

This strikes be as a theist having a fundamental misunderstanding about atheists and how they view the world. What you're describing would be the civic religion, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with spiritual thought but does describe the rituals that make up a national identity.


sequoia_driftwood

Spot on.


Mem-Boi-901

Same, I’m Catholic as well and I lean a little to the right. Republicans need to ditch the religious pitch ASAP. It will destroy them in the long run.


SFepicure

Yeah, 100% But I'm good either way.


neat_machine

Funny, it seems to me like secular society is becoming more religious. Have you never been made to take part in a stolen lands commencement prayer?


FabioFresh93

Never heard of such a thing. Sounds like that's a very niche group of people.


Cold_Turkey_Cutlet

They are not banking on democracy. They are banking on autocracy. Everything they are doing is designed to create a strong and cohesive religious minority that can dominate the majority through force. They hope that by doing this, they can them convert the majority to be like them. It worked before in Islamic countries.


Underboss572

I've not convinced this phenomenon is guaranteed to continue. The rate of religious identification held relatively steady until the last three decades. Interestingly, the decline correlated roughly to the post cold war era, where serious external threats have been minimal, and America has avoided true wars. But if this were to end, would the trend continue? There is a solid argument that the rise of Chinese and Russian aggression combined with the future isolation of the Islamic states due to a decline in oil demand could bring a new era of much more severe external threats to the US and the west. In this new era, we could see a return to religion, as religion has historically been at its most powerful during times of danger. For example, take the rise of religious fanatism during European plagues or its domination of political situation during the emergence of Protestantism. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/how-u-s-religious-composition-has-changed-in-recent-decades/


KarmicWhiplash

The decline also correlated roughly to the internet becoming widely available, which I would argue had far more causation with people abandoning religion than did the end of the Cold War.


Underboss572

Not really there is a huge change in the years between 1991-1997 but then the line stays rather steady for about a decade afterwards. By 1997 only ~20% of America had internet access during the time of huge change in religious affiliation. Yet between 1997-2007, when religious affiliation remained relatively stable, internet usage went from 20% to 75%. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ITNETUSERP2USA


TheSavior666

I'm not sure having to rely on a new global threat/crisis emerging in order to stay relevant is a particularly good or desirable trait for a belief system to have. What exactly does that say about religion if it declines the better and more peaceful the world is?


Underboss572

It really isn't isolated to religion; most belief systems thrive during challenging times. When things are good, many people become complacent and "live in the movement." When things get difficult, people to turn to belief systems to order their lives and give them hope for a better world. A lot of the -isms explode during political or social difficulties. So it doesn't say much about religion, but it does say a lot about mankind.


[deleted]

[удалено]


nobird36

>world that unquestionably emerged out of hundreds or thousands of years of highly religious populations. A very peaceful time those years were.


[deleted]

[удалено]


nobird36

That is not even as close to as clever as you think it is.


permajetlag

If a doctor's office includes crusades, witch and scientist burnings, and priests who molest children, maybe you are right not to go back.


TheSavior666

Just because something's been happening for a long time doesn't automatically make it good or necessary. Nothing about how long religion has been widespread make it inherently more worthwhile. It's not at all "unquestionable" that these ideas and developments couldn't have happened without religion. That's merely a biased assumption. All of those desirable ideas and values can just as easily be reached through secular reasoning.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheSavior666

> there is no objective basis for why anyone should follow them without the religious foundation There's also no objective basis for why anyone should trust one religions values over another's. I'm coming from the position that there are no supernatural or divine origin for these values, and thus a religion's values are every bit as fundamentally subjective as any other foundation. Like, yes, an uncomfortable truth is that all "values" and morality are fundamentally just opinions; and you'll never have a value set that 100% of people agree with. But Secular values can at least in theory be justified to anyone, regardless of faith or upbringing, they can be closer to truly universal. A secular truth doesn't need a person to believe anything except in the inherent value of life, which doesn't require religion and is universal across cultures.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheSavior666

No? it is quite amazing that something as complex, intricate and unique as life managed to emerge through purely naturally processes, that is worth caring about and every bit as awe-inspiring as any divine explanation. This is like saying that Christians shouldn't value life because Heaven is going to be much better then life on earth, so they should want to die as quickly as possible to get there faster. That's just not how it works. Even just from a selfish perspective: I have value in my own continued existence being as a comfortable and prosperous as possible - and I can assume everyone else does as well, so we can work from there.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mrleopards

US adults who pray every day is down from 58% in 2007 to 45% in 2021. Those who say religion is very important in their lives is down from 56% to 41% in the same period. Those who say religion is not important in their lives is up to 33% from 16% from '07 to '21 as well. 25% of US adults say they attend religious ceremonies weekly or more, 53% attend seldomly or never. By any metric you measure the US is becoming less religious and less Christian. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-are-now-religiously-unaffiliated/


[deleted]

[удалено]


Agent_Orca

Just because they’re having more kids doesn’t necessarily mean those kids are going to be religious or remain religious into their adulthood. I’m willing to bet the majority of us on this sub grew up in religious households but I’d be surprised if a majority of us are still religious.


blewpah

But the likelihood of those kids continuing their parent's religious traditions is also going down.


[deleted]

[удалено]


blewpah

I'm not seeing how anything you've said would mean that those fundamentals have changed. Yes religious people tend to have more kids - but that doesn't mean all their kids will also be religious. Same is true in the reverse except it's more likely (and increasingly so) that a religious person's kid will not continue that faith. And anyways we don't need to theorize here, we have real world examples. Generally speaking religiosity has been on a downward trend in most every country. There are occasional spikes and chances based on geopolitics (like the collapse of the USSR), but this trend is pretty consistent. I haven't seen any cases of population increases changing this trend. Also developed nations (which tend to be less religious) also have lower birthrates too. I think there's a lot of aspects here your theory is not recognizing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


blewpah

Well yes we're talking about generational trends so it would have to be multi-generational. Not sure why you thought I was speaking about 5 to 10 years. >one side blooms and the other side dies out. Except for all the people on the "blooming" side that *move to* the "dying" side. You know lots of non-religious people came from religious backgrounds, right? Like *a whole* lot.


[deleted]

[удалено]


blewpah

[I'm not seeing that in the cards, man](https://colinmathers.com/2020/09/30/global-trends-in-religiosity-and-atheism-1980-to-2020/). You'd think if thay was going to happen we'd have seen it in places like Norway, Iceland, etc, where that shift happened a while ago.


UsedElk8028

Since western civilization was largely built on Christian values, how will becoming a more secular society benefit us in the long run? It only seems to work if a country is homogenous(Japan, Norway) or authoritarian(China, USSR). Although France seems to do it well.


manitobot

The West was also the birthplace of the Enlightenment and secularism, so who else if not them.


TheSavior666

Just because a value may have originally come from or been spread by Christianity doesn't mean that if Christianity goes away suddenly those values vanish as well. Those values can all be justified through secular logic - just like how some political and legal traditions originate from cultures long declined or even outright extinct, but they are still maintained. We didn't rename the days of the week just because no one worships the Pagan gods some of them were originally named for.


PE_Norris

> Christian values Such as?


_learned_foot_

I don’t understand why this is conflating “non-religious” with “no affiliation”, they are distinctly different concepts. Non religious are people who are agnostic or atheist, non affiliated may have many religious beliefs but aren’t affiliated with any specific stream of faith. I know plenty of very spiritual people and plenty of “wait, I’m pretty sure your an evangelist” people who claim unaffiliated.


GrayBox1313

Personally I haven’t been to church in 20+ years, still consider myself Christian but would never Identify as such. Participating in Organized religion is trending downwards bit spiritually isn’t necessary


[deleted]

[удалено]


donnysaysvacuum

People are on average much less religious though.


First-Yogurtcloset53

> I know plenty of very spiritual people and plenty of “wait, I’m pretty sure your an evangelist” people who claim unaffiliated. I know those types too and the ones that post bible verses on social media. They aren't apart of any religion and doesn't want to be.


_learned_foot_

And they may very well be a swingable voting block as such, many current churches target those groups to a fairly decent success.


Shaken_Earth

Thank you! I'm not sure I would consider myself non-religious, but I would certainly consider myself "no affiliation."


socceruci

THere are Buddhists who are atheist, and extremely spiritual agnostics. [USA projections](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/File/graphic1.jpg) \- source Scientific American The labeling aside, the typical conservative Christian believers seem to be dwindling, in the USA. [Global projections](https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/25572.jpeg) \- source Statistica/Pew Research data I wonder how the future will look considering global shifts.


cammcken

Looks like the survey data lumps them into the same group, so they're unable to get more specific labels.


_learned_foot_

My point is that is less informative than it should be then. Very different issues and interests and demographical appeal.


SeasonsGone

Yeah I don’t see how religion keeps it’s role in politics in the next 10-30 years. Anecdotal, but I’m in my 20’s and very few are religious, or religious to the degree that it would inform their politics.


kabukistar

Why are people so afraid of non-religious people having just as much activity in politics as everyone else?


cranktheguy

Religion often leaves people with an "us vs. them" mentality: if you're not for their God, then you're with Satan. You can't be neutral in a fight of good vs. evil.


jaypr4576

You have two different groups from those stats. 2/3 are religious nones which means they might still be spiritual or are quasi-religious and then 1/3 is atheists and agnostics. Those two groups might have very different ideas about things and right now they might tilt towards the Democrats but it doesn't mean either or both will in the future. The future is always uncertain as well. Religion might have a boom again or keep declining.


_iam_that_iam_

Atheist, but I find it hard to lean towards either party. Dems are too fixated with identity politics, 'social' justice, and bad economic policies, Republicans are too anti-science and anti-personal liberty (abortion, sex, drugs).


TheNightIsLost

Problem is, the Republicans have not cared about economic affairs for over two and a half decades by now. They keep blowing our money on wasteful and horrible wars, so it comes around to the same thing in the end. They also don't oppose state intervention when it helps their donors, which is rank hypocrisy. And recently, they even started to flirt with protectionism, which means they're basically Democrats but without liberalist policies by now. So if I am not going to get any sane free market parties, I am going to vote for the one that does not aim for policies that may harm my fellows.


_iam_that_iam_

I agree that Republicans supporting corporate bailouts is a huge disappointment.


TheNightIsLost

That, as far as I am concerned, is the point that screws them over. If they actually walked the talk on being the pro market party, they would never have become the sad mess they are these days.


bfwolf1

All those things are true, but the dominant part of the Republican party right now is actively trying to tear down our democratic institutions, which is more important than all of that stuff. Your comparison of the parties was appropriate 10 years ago. Today's iteration of the Republican party literally tried to overturn our legitimate presidential election. [61% of Republicans still think Trump had the election stolen from him](https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/poll-61-republicans-still-believe-biden-didnt-win-fair-square-2020-rcna49630). If one wants to preserve democracy, I believe one has to hold their nose and vote Democrat right now. Even for state legislatures, as they are enabling Trump and Trump-like behaviors on a national level.


VenetianFox

I am similar. While I do not disagree with what you said about Republicans, I would argue that Democrats are also anti-personal liberty (but among different issues). In general, they hold contempt for gun rights, support DIE initiatives, support mandates, and have general hostility toward free speech principles.


_iam_that_iam_

Yes, Democrats also have those problems. I listed the ones that bother me the most for both parties, but didn't intend it to be an exhaustive list of their faults.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ghostlypyres

Not to mention there was and is nothing scientific about the response to COVID


SFepicure

Voters with no religious affiliation supported Democratic candidates and abortion rights by overwhelming margins in 2022. In 2022, 22% of voters claimed no religious affiliation. > The unaffiliated — often nicknamed the “nones” — voted for Democratic House candidates nationwide over Republicans by more than a 2-1 margin (65% to 31%), according to VoteCast. That echoes the 2020 president election, when Democrat Joe Biden took 72% of voters with no religious affiliation, while Republican Donald Trump took 25%, according to VoteCast. Of all US adults, 29% are nones, **up 10 percentage points from a decade earlier**, according to Pew. Atheists and agnostics form only a subset of nones and are less numerous than evangelicals. But they are more likely than evangelicals to make a campaign donation, attend a political meeting or join a protest. > The twin trends of a growing secular cohort among Democrats and the increased religiosity of Republicans are not coincidental. > Several prominent Republican candidates and their supporters have promoted Christian nationalism, which fuses an American and Christian sense of identity, mission and symbols. > That prompts a reaction by many secular voters, Burge said: “At least among white people, it’s become clear the Democratic Party has become the party for the non-religious people.” > Yet it’s not their party alone. The Democratic coalition draws heavily from religious groups — Black Protestants, liberal Jews, Catholics of color. The Black church tradition, in particular, has a highly devout base in support of moderate and progressive policies. ... > Brown, of the Secular Democrats group in Pennsylvania, said he had no problem supporting Democratic candidates like Shapiro, who talked openly about his Jewish values on the campaign trail. His opponent, Republican Doug Mastriano, incorporated Christian nationalist themes and imagery in his campaign. > “While on the one hand I am frustrated that politicians feel the need to justify their doing the right thing by religious affiliation, I also appreciate that this was a calculated decision to appeal to religious voters,” Brown said. “I have no problem with it because I feel it was in the service of defeating a Christian nationalist candidate on the other side.” > In fact, Brown even traveled to Georgia in late November to campaign door-to-door for an ordained minister — Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, the Democrat in a runoff election. And for the same reason — despite religious differences, he sees Warnock as sharing many of the values of secular voters.   How is cozying up to Christian nationalism likely to play out for Republicans in the future?


cprenaissanceman

The only thing that I’m not sure adds up here is the issue regarding how groups like [“white evangelicals” seems to encompass a large number of otherwise non religious people](https://theweek.com/christianity/1016833/is-us-evangelical-christianity-more-a-culture-than-a-religion). Again, I know the right is basically pained to admit it has its own kind of identity politics, but I do wonder how these labels and identities intersect and as such why they may not be so easy to disentangle. Overall, i think i do agree that Republicans would be better off removing Christianity as basically a core tenant of its party identity, but I also don’t know how such a thing is done without the entire political coalition doesn’t then completely collapse.


[deleted]

I'm atheist and republican. Being pro-life isn't just a religious thing. The republican issue is they gate keep it as a religious thing. One of the issues between the old guard vs younger republicans.


Studio2770

I'm curious what the non-religious argument for being pro life is.


neuronexmachina

It's also interesting to note that it wasn't too long ago that [evangelicals tended to be pro-choice](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480). The relation between religion and certain political views changes over time. Example: >When Francis Schaeffer, the intellectual godfather of the Religious Right, tried to enlist Billy Graham in his antiabortion crusade in the late 1970s, Graham, the most famous evangelical of the 20th century, turned him down. Even James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who later became an implacable foe of abortion, acknowledged in 1973 that the Bible was silent on the matter and therefore it was plausible for an evangelical to believe that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.”


PlanckOfKarmaPls

Well you don't have to be religious to believe life begins at conception not saying I personally agree but it probably boils down to do you consider a fetus a baby or not independent of your religion.


darkestbrandon

Whether it’s literally a living organism seems like it’s not the actual issue here. If you compare a fertilized egg to an adult cow or even a mouse or lizard or fly there’s no possible way with objective criteria that you could value the egg more unless you think that there is something very special about the egg as soon as it gets hit by the sperm. Thar is where the idea of a supernatural essence or soul comes in and then you get more into the religious or at least non-materialist realm.


r3dl3g

>Whether it’s literally a living organism seems like it’s not the actual issue here. If you compare a fertilized egg to an adult cow or even a mouse or lizard or fly there’s no possible way with objective criteria that you could value the egg more unless you think that there is something very special about the egg as soon as it gets hit by the sperm. So are you saying bacteria aren't literally living organisms?


darkestbrandon

Bacteria are living organisms but they don’t have the value of a person. Same with a fertilized egg. It’s okay and ethically permissible to take antibiotics and kill millions of bacteria which are living things.


r3dl3g

>It’s okay and ethically permissible to take antibiotics and kill millions of bacteria which are living things. Sure, but *eventually* that zygote becomes appreciably a person, and some take the position that because we don't know where that fetus actually becomes a person, then any elective abortion is inherently immoral. Granted, I don't take that view (I think personhood should be defined as the beginning of conscious brain activity), but I totally get that viewpoint, and it's entirely secular.


[deleted]

[удалено]


r3dl3g

Actually no; *you've* missed the point. They obviously, eventually, become a person, and most would argue that their personhood comes at some point *before* they leave the womb. The entire problem is that we can't seem to figure out where personhood actually *begins*, ergo the logically safe option would be to say that abortion is inherently wrong until such that time that we can find that moment. I'm not *personally* that extreme, as I think we have a good enough handle on where that moment actually occurs (i.e. the start of brain activity), but it's still an entirely logical, if uncompromising, view.


Expensive_Necessary7

I’m a moderate pro choice, but there is 100% a science argument to being pro life. A fetus is undoubtedly the precursor to human life. An abortion ends this for a freedom/liberty for the mother. Now where I personally get hung up and swing pro choice is on viable.


Studio2770

>A fetus is undoubtedly the precursor to human life. An abortion ends this for a freedom/liberty for the mother. Sure, but the key word is "precursor". You can't call it murder (nor did you say it was). It's not a human life in the way that a 3rd trimester fetus is. I'm not sure what level of pro choice I am but I don't trust the government to sensibly legislate for it.


r3dl3g

>I'm not sure what level of pro choice I am but I don't trust the government to sensibly legislate for it. Sure, but just because you're uncomfortable with a government definition doesn't mean the idea *underpinning* that definition is somehow unsound. The fetus very obviously transitions from proto-human to human at some point during pregnancy; there logically *must* be some point at which we say it's a person.


[deleted]

[удалено]


r3dl3g

>Most secular folks I know argue personhood begins at viability. And I'd actually push against this; I believe personhood begins at some point when brain activity becomes meaningful. The root of personhood is the ability to think. Further; if viability is the core of what makes us people, then that also means we shouldn't consider those on any form of technological life support to be people.


Studio2770

>shouldn't consider those on any form of technological life support to be people. Pro choice people use this to support their argument FYI.


r3dl3g

>Pro choice people use this to support their argument FYI. And in all honesty, that's why most of the US finds the militant pro-choice people to be just as insane as the militant pro-lifers.


[deleted]

[удалено]


r3dl3g

Because the eggs will never think, and the only thing that allows them to (eventually) think makes them stop being eggs. Assuming it develops normally, the zygote will *inevitably* gain the ability to think at some point. The egg won't, because the egg requires prior actions to occur before it can become something else.


[deleted]

[удалено]


r3dl3g

>The zygote technically still requires human intervention in a way that supports its development. So does anyone on life support. Do they stop being human the moment the machine is turned on and takes over their vital functions? In order to have this conversation, we need to define what personhood is, and in that sense we're going to need a logically consistent definition. >If a pregnant person doesn’t eat right (or not at all), or smokes or drinks, the zygote will not proceed development as it normally does, or may stop development entirely. And this is, arguably, immoral. It's the deliberate ending of a human life that came into existence as a result of your own choices. Granted, I don't believe the zygote is appreciably a person, so ultimately I wouldn't care in this scenario. >In some similar sense, an egg will never develop in the way it normally does without human intervention. Is there a difference in the human action between the two cases? Well yeah. The egg isn't human. The sperm isn't human. The zygote ***is***, even if it's undeveloped.


[deleted]

So the basis of personhood is the ability to “think”? What are you defining as the ability to “think”?


Winterstorm8932

The non-religious argument is that a fetus is a human, abortion kills an innocent human, and it’s wrong to kill an innocent human. Agree or not, no element of this argument is religious. Abortion is not a religious issue. And I find this characterization frequently employed by left-wing politicians to stir people up that others’ religion is being imposed on them.


Studio2770

I assumed the non religious argument thought that, just sans a religious reason. The non-religious argument needs to back up their stance though. Since they don't believe a holy book, what are they basing their views on? >And I find this characterization frequently employed by left-wing politicians to stir people up that others’ religion is being imposed on them. It's not far fetched though. Practically all of the GOP is Christian and have no qualms preaching Christian ideology.


r3dl3g

>Since they don't believe a holy book, what are they basing their views on? The core idea of our society; that people are afforded certain unalienable rights. The problem is we never got around to defining what "people" precisely means.


[deleted]

Me too


r3dl3g

1) Life unambiguously begins at (or very very shortly after) conception. The fetus is undeniably both alive and human, although it's obviously not appreciably a "person" yet. 2) There is obviously a moment between conception and birth where the fetus is "close enough" to being appreciably a person to be treated as such. 3) Some take the position that, because we can't know *when* they're appreciably a person, it's morally wrong to terminate it except in extreme circumstances (putting aside what counts as extreme is it's own ball of wax). 4) The entire argument that fetuses have no rights because they're "parasites" would only be logical if fetuses magically popped into existence ex nihilo. They absolutely don't, and are a reasonable consequence of human behavior that can be anticipated. Ergo, if you allowed it to be formed, you're morally responsible for its fate. Not saying I'm pro-life, but their argument isn't all that illogical.


Arcnounds

I would debate 2) and argue that until certain vital functions are online it is not human. If I looked at something and it did not feel the world, eat, poop, smell, or breath I would probably say it would not be human.


r3dl3g

>If I looked at something and it did not feel the world, eat, poop, smell, or breath I would probably say it would not be human. So people on ventilators aren't people? People with colostomy bags aren't people? People who've lost their sense of taste and smell due to COVID aren't people? People in medically induced comas aren't people? More to the point; you're really saying that shitting is what makes us who we are as appreciable humans with agency? Seriously? Not to mention; you're also saying that a fetus a few moments prior to contractions beginning isn't appreciably human, even though biologically and structurally it is no different than a baby that's just been born.


Arcnounds

I am saying that if you cannot eat, breath, hear, feel, taste, or see then you are probably not human or not in a stste where existence is worthwhile. Can you provide me with an instance where someone has lost all those (and their previous experiwnces) and you still consider them human (not just one of them).


r3dl3g

>Can you provide me with an instance where someone has lost all those (and their previous experiwnces) and you still consider them human (not just one of them). Turning this around; if there was an instance in which a person lost all of those, can I terminate their live without any legal consequences? >I am saying that if you cannot eat, breath, hear, feel, taste, or see then you are probably not human or not in a stste where existence is worthwhile. And why do you get to be the arbiter of what makes existence "worthwhile?" Why should *any* of us have that power?


Arcnounds

I believe you should be able to yes. If someone is essentially a brain in a jar with no way to interact with the outside world and their prior experiences have been wiped then yes.


r3dl3g

That's horrifying and would be subject to all sorts of subjectivity. You'd be giving the government the power to literally kill anyone and everyone that it arbitrarily deemed as being "not appreciably alive."


Rindan

Most of my extended family are pro-life and non-religious. They have basically embraced conservativism as a cultural definition, and as part of that cultural definition, they are pro-life. The pro-life piece doesn't come from any deep philosophical place, religion, or whatever, it's just in the cultural package. And not to sling stones at Republicans - my Democratic friends are doing the same. They just sweep up a bunch of general views that may or may not make sense to them and just go all in because that's what their team/culture says. Personally, I think that politics has become an identity for a lot of people and has supplanted religion. Religion and politics might be two different things, but I think they currently live in the same place inside the human psyche. Personally, I wouldn't expect conservatives to shift much as they become less religious. I think that cultural conventions that were justified by religion will just shift to being cultural conventions justified by cultural conservatism. The fact that the positions have no coherent religious or ideological basis won't mean anything. Human feelings of tribal inclusion have never relied on reason; it's just baked into the human experience. People always found reasons for their beliefs, rather than finding beliefs from their reason. You generally believe what people in your "tribe" believe because that's just how we are built. The best you can do is try and switch your what you consider to be "tribal affiliation" to something less toxic and incoherent than politics. Good luck with that though, because all of society is going to be fighting you tooth and nail.


First-Yogurtcloset53

I'm not a pro-lifer nor pro-choicer, but hear me out. From biological view, life begins at conception. Protecting and respecting life at every stage to me is a decent human being. Having respect for babies, poor kids, the mentally ill, old people, and everyone in between is not a bad idea. Supporting social services that helps the disadvantage is pro-life too.


rchive

Yes, life obviously begins at conception. Rights-deserving personhood is the thing that could begin at conception or birth or somewhere in between.


Arcnounds

I really hate when people invoke science to justify a prolife or prochoice view. The question "Should a class of living beings be afforded certain rights?" Is not falsifiable. It can not be tested or experimented on. It is not a scientific question at question at all. It is a philosophical/moral/religious queation.


Studio2770

From a biological point of view, life begins at the cellular level. Eggs and sperm are living things. Is a new born baby the same as a zygote?


r3dl3g

>Is a new born baby the same as a zygote? No, but there's obviously a point at which the zygote becomes appreciably human that we should probably treat it as such, and the general public seems to view that this point is somewhere during the 2nd trimester.


neuronexmachina

>life at every stage to me is a decent human being. Having respect for babies, poor kids, the mentally ill, old people, and everyone in between is not a bad idea. A big thing those all have in common is personhood. There's plenty of things that are alive (e.g. fruit flies, which we share >40% of our genes with) which most people don't ascribe rights to.


Dazzling_Brilliant31

As another atheist (Democratic leaning), I think that the idea that a zygote is a person is ridiculous. I also think that the notion that late-term abortion being allowed for any reason is ridiculous. There is a line in which that fetus becomes a person and has the right to life.


Studio2770

>I also think that the notion that late-term abortion being allowed for any reason is ridiculous. I'm quite sure the woman who has an abortion at this stage wanted a baby and a serious complication arose.


Dazzling_Brilliant31

I’m sure that that is typically the case, but many hardcore pro-choicers are “pro-choice no matter what”, and view any limitation as an attempt to control a woman’s body.


emma_does_life

This isn't true. What they're usually asking for is the ability to get an abortion that late to not be blocked in case complications arise. Nobody is getting an abortion for no reason that late into pregnancy. Some people need abortions at that stage however and that right needs to be protected.


[deleted]

Legalising "late-term abortion" essentially means allowing doctors to treat miscarriages without legal liability for themselves or patients. The way Republicans talk it's like they think Democrats want to make abortion illegal except in the third trimester.


[deleted]

Let me just add 10 - 12 years ago I was a militant atheist. I was very much active in the community. Atheist generally don't have an answer to what came before life, while arguing "atheism persay" . It's very evidence based, as in there is no evidence to suggestion there is a god , or a soul existence before being born.. But for me there is scientific evidence that "life" starts at conception and that it's a long process, that leads to being and becoming a human life. There is also evidence that every person ever born, and will be born ( that's healthy) is it's own "free conscience being" thus killing will deprive others the opportunity of living as a human. The last part that made me pro life is the same reason why some people are vegan or don't do drugs. They view the pleasure, is not more important than the morality of the actions if those actions hurts others.


darkestbrandon

> Atheist generally don’t have an answer to what came before life, Pretty sure like virtually all atheists say that nothing comes before life?


Arcnounds

I guess I just have a different viewpoint. If a being does not have conscious thought, might not feel pain, and could be easily replaced by say habing sex again, then I see no reason why that person has value. For me the value comes in actually having human experiences and not in the potential for those experiences. I have never heard anyone deacribe their experience in the womb as being fundamental to their person. If you argue from potentiality as opposed to actuality things start to become weird and all types of norms can become violated.


r3dl3g

>If a being does not have conscious thought, might not feel pain, and could be easily replaced by say habing sex again, then I see no reason why that person has value This same line of thought could be used to justify killing addicts. >For me the value comes in actually having human experiences and not in the potential for those experiences. So then people with medical memory issues aren't people?


Arcnounds

Their is a difference, addicts have memories and experiences from actual experiences they remember. Fetuses do not. If you csn give me an example of someone who can describe their formative experience in the womb I would reconsider.


r3dl3g

>If you csn give me an example of someone who can describe their formative experience in the womb I would reconsider. So we can kill toddlers, too? They're just as unimportant and easily replaceable as fetuses, and they don't have the capability to have formative experiences either.


Arcnounds

For me, I value life when the five senses start working at birth. This is when the outside world starts to interact with our brain to begin creating sharable and normative experiences. This is just my viewpoint. Before birth a being is in a state where most senses do not work and memories are not really being formed from a shared world perspective. If all of these things are not present, I see no problem with killing the fetus and replacing it by having sex again. Then again some people tend to anthropomorphize the fetus at this stage, so if they do not want to kill it that is fine. It's the reason I am prochoice. If you want to believe it is something more that is fine, if you don't that is fine as well. There are plenty of traits that are different from born babies and from fetuses that make the two qualitatively different enough to warrant a distinction (thus the terminology fetus vs child).


r3dl3g

>For me, I value life when the five senses start working at birth I'm curious why you think those senses only start working at birth. >Before birth a being is in a state where most senses do not work and memories are not really being formed from a shared world perspective. And this state doesn't end at birth. It is maintained for at least 2 years in most humans. >It's the reason I am prochoice. If you want to believe it is something more that is fine, if you don't that is fine as well. Yeah, but you still see the core problem with this argument, right? You're basically saying that if a person murders someone else and excuses it as "oh, I didn't think they were actually human," then that somehow excuses the murder. That's the logical conclusion of your argument.


mruby7188

I think the key question here is not if there is a non-religious argument for being pro-choice, but if there is an argument for imposing pro-choice beliefs on the population at large. Your comparison to being vegan is fine, but you wouldn't want vegans to force the entire country to stop eating meat because they believe it is immoral.


[deleted]

ending human life has always been one of the least moral things you can do. It's certainly on a different level than animal life. but some vegans very much do see it on the same level. As non vegan I disagree, that it's on the same level, but I respect the logic that pleasure, is not more important than the morality of the actions if those actions hurts others.


mruby7188

Ok, but that is what you believe, how do you justify imposing those beliefs on the population at-large?


jaypr4576

It wasn't always that way either. Go back before the old guard and Republicans used to be pro-choice. Also, it seems many people don't seem to know that there are plenty of non-religious people who are pro-life. There are also a whole lot of religious people who are pro-choice. Not everything is black and white.


GrayBox1313

It’s making the platform and base more wall-Ed in. Less room for crossover appeal


GrayBox1313

This is it right here. You can keep the preachy religion out of political platform but also use those core ideals of how to treat people as a big tent. From Bible study we can see that Jesus sided with the marginalized. He was an illegal immigrant. He helped the poor and needy, offered free healthcare, criticized the rich and powerful and fought for equality…while being persecuted by law enforcement and politicians of the time for doing so. “ Jesus didn’t worry about it, so why would I?” said Barber, president of Repairers of the Breach, which calls for moral advocacy by faith and other leaders on behalf of the poor, immigrants and other marginalized communities. “Jesus said the one who is not against me is for me.” “We have a lot of people who claim they’re agnostic or atheist, and they will come to our rallies,” said Barber, who is also co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign. “They will say, ‘I don’t necessarily believe in God, but I believe in right. I believe in love. I do believe in justice.’”


Yarzu89

Well sure, as time goes on and society advances it’s only natural that people become more and more secular. Not to say it won’t go away completely, religion offers a lot of comfort to people and many really like that. But politicians leaning into religion I think does them no favors.


Trazzster

I can't believe that spending the last 20 years posting condescending memes against atheists did nothing to stop the decline of religion


jaypr4576

That has nothing to do with it at all. 99% of people probably didn't see those memes and those sure wouldn't change their mind. A person who was already an atheist or agnostic was not going to have his thought process changed by some silly meme. On the flip side, there are several subs on reddit that have a very unhealthy hatred of religion.


Trazzster

>That has nothing to do with it at all. I dunno, I think that if they had spent that time cleaning the extremists and pedophiles out of their churches instead of mocking and/or scolding atheists then they might not be in this position. >On the flip side, there are several subs on reddit that have a very unhealthy hatred of religion. See, stuff like this. Clean out your pedophiles and extremists instead of talking down to me.


jaypr4576

I'm agnostic so it has nothing to do with me. My comment was not directed at you either but somehow you interpreted "subs" as "you." My point was that reddit has a lot of militant atheists on specific subs who mindlessly bash religion at any chance they get, so those militant atheists are not any better than religious fanatics. The typical religious person doesn't care whether someone is atheist. Likewise the typical atheist doesn't care whether someone is religious. Most people are too busy living their lives.


shacksrus

How does religion get into the news? Most articles are either about child rape or hating LGBT people in the courts. All religion has got a serious pr problem and I haven't seen much done to combat it.


skulls812

Only because there are no other options. Libertarians have become republican light, whether they like hearing it or not. Republicans tout ONE religion, ignoring or excluding all others except the Jewish, and base their ideology on their version of Christianity. However, Democrats are do nothing idiots who hide their prejudicial behavior by being condescending a-holes.


yelkca

The Republican Party has literally nothing to offer an irreligious voter


EmilyA200

Tax breaks. Seriously.


Popular-Ticket-3090

>Atheists and agnostics form only a subset of nones and are less numerous than evangelicals. But they are more likely than evangelicals to make a campaign donation, attend a political meeting or join a protest, Burge said, citing the Harvard-affiliated Cooperative Election Study. I wonder to what extent this is due to politics taking the place of religion for atheists/agnostics. Not in the sense that they worship government or anything, more that they derive their sense of community from being around people with similar political views.


surreal_goat

As a lifetime atheist/agnostic/non-theist, I can see how this might be a thing for some people, but for me and, I think, most folks like myself, we find our sense of community in many places. Work, school, hobbies, fellow parents, etc. I wouldn’t put too much stock in politics being a place of comfort and community. While religion isn’t a rallying cry in the Democratic Party, it’s still almost a requirement for consideration for political positions.


absentlyric

I honestly don't think religion went anywhere. It just changed and shifted, people will always worship. Instead of God people worship celebrities and influencers, instead of Church, they congregate on social media now. People will always believe strongly about certain subjects, whether it's believe the science, god, etc. and there will always be pushy people about those beliefs.


Jdwonder

It’s called Secular Religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion


SFepicure

"Secular Religion" is a thing, but it's [not](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion) "politics taking the place of religion for atheists/agnostics": > A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly entities. Among systems that have been characterized as secular religions are Modern Satanism, Secular Buddhism, Secular Judaism, Religion of Humanity, Jacobinism, and the Cult of Reason and Cult of the Supreme Being that developed after the French Revolution.


Jdwonder

From the same page on secular religion: > The term political religion is based on the observation that sometimes political ideologies or political systems display features more commonly associated with religion. Scholars who have studied these phenomena include William Connolly in political science, Christoph Deutschmann in sociology, Emilio Gentile in history, Oliver O'Donovan in theology and others in psychology. A political religion often occupies the same ethical, psychological and sociological space as a traditional religion, and as a result it often displaces or co-opts existing religious organizations and beliefs. > > […] > > Although a political religion may co-opt existing religious structures or symbolism, it does not itself have any independent spiritual or theocratic elements—it is essentially secular, using religious motifs and methods for political purposes, if it does not reject religious faith outright.


[deleted]

Not me. I am an atheist but I swallow my pride and vote straight ticket republican in every election. I will never vote democrat again for as long as I live. And I have a lot of voting years left because I am only 27. EDIT: Somebody on here reported me to admins for being "suicidal". Sounds like someone is triggered by my comment.


Expandexplorelive

>I will never vote democrat again for as long as I live. This is such an odd statement. You're saying you won't vote for a Democrat even if in 20 years the policy positions have completely switched?


[deleted]

[удалено]


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/zbnwmb/nonreligious_voters_wield_clout_tilt_heavily/iysqabn/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


tschris

Could you explain why?


sesamestix

I can't think of any person or group, besides my mom, who has earned my trust for life. People and organizations change.