Imagine a demographic that has doubled its share of the population over the past two decades, is up by 25 percent over the past four years alone, and now accounts for as many as one in five Americans. Imagine that this demographic votes disproportionately for one political party—to the tune of 70 percent for Obama versus 26 percent for Romney in the 2012 election. Sounds like a demographic that ought to be of interest to politicians, journalists, and activists, right?Exactly. But of course, once the media DOES catch on, they will miss the fact that Albert Mohler does not define Christianity. There are a lot of alliances that can be built between progressive Christians and the "Faitheists", electorally and otherwise.
That demographic consists of people who describe themselves as atheist, agnostic, or religiously unaffiliated—the “nones,” as they’re sometimes called. And it hasn’t attracted anywhere near the attention it deserves in the postgame analysis of the 2012 election....
Like any group of this size, the religiously unaffiliated aren’t monolithic.....They are spread fairly evenly across education and income levels. And they’re politically diverse when it comes to economic ideas. But they do seem to largely agree on one thing: that mixing religion with politics is a bad idea.
....Others on the right, like the Rev. Dr. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, did get it: “It’s not that our message—we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong—didn’t get out. It did get out...It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed. An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
The electoral demographic no one talks about
We've heard a lot about the GOP's Latino problem, meaning that Latinos "broke" for the Democrats and rejected the Republicans. And about the GOP's lack of appeal for women. We've also heard that the LGBT community went heavily for Obama. But have we heard about THIS problem?