1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

White Christian Friend, I Hear Your Silence.

Discussion in 'Personal' started by MAGAorMIGA, Nov 8, 2019.

  1. nomad

    nomad Star commenter


    While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
  2. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    I disagree.

    A faith implies a belief system. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
  3. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    On the "Atheism is faith" discussion [and because the race based virtue signalling elsewhere doesn't interest me]...

    I'm going to speculate it depends on how you perceive "faith"...

    A person of faith will see their faith as an intrinsic part of their being. That they need and require faith to get through their day. They look at other people of their faith and see similar... they look at other people of different faiths and again, they see similar... they look at Atheism and see an engagement with faith even if it is a specific rejection of faith. Therefore, to them, Atheism is a faith because it is an act of faith in the non-existence of God.

    To a person of no-faith the don't see faith as intrinsic to their being. They get through life without faith and look around them at other people for whom faith is not essential and see similar. They see people of different political creeds, different cultures, operating without faith and see similar. They look at those with faith as having a bolt-on extra to their psychology [probably while at the same time having "faith" in science and reason] and assume that Atheism is not a faith because they don't perceive themselves as lacking for their lack of faith.

    Least that's how I rationalise it in my head.
    George_Randle likes this.
  4. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Not all that long ago. The following dates from 2014:

    Church of England worshippers are more likely to vote for the Conservative Party, according to new research. The data also suggests Catholics tend to support the Labour Party.

  5. fraisier

    fraisier Senior commenter

    Ah, I don’t doubt your findings across a small sample but first and foremost we have to define "Christian" here as it is too vague and meaningless if left as such. There really is no homogeneous “Christian vote”. It is a notoriously difficult electorate to pin down as it has many strands and sub-divisions. I'm aware that the two main branches of Christianity, Protestantism and Catholicism, may yield different results in this particular field of psephology but I doubt it.

    There are some key distinctions to make here between different types of Christians, as GDW has hinted in her post #13. We could for instance distinguish between the following three categories:

    a) the committed practising Christians
    b) the occasionally practising Christians
    c) the non-practising Christians

    Several studies and large-scale polls in France on the "Catholic vote", conducted around the time of the last Presidential election (April & May 2017), have shown that the results in terms of voting are substantially different across those three categories.

    In the graph below (commissioned by the daily La Croix to the Harris polling organisation who used a sample of ~8,000 Catholics) we see the different in terms of voting outcomes in the first round:


    On the left handside, category a): 44% of them voted for Fillon (mainstream right, Tory if you will), 16% for Le Pen (far right) and 7% for N. Dupont-Aignan (hard right). So that’s 67% for the right vs 33% therefore for the rest, left and centre, in which I’ll include the centre-right (we’ll consider here for the purposes of this discussion that Macron is centre/centre-right although he has always refused, for strategic reasons, to position himself on the political spectrum. The vast majority of his voters at the last elections were, in the first round anyhow, from the centre-left and the centre-right).

    The replies in category b) are different but still lean rightwards: 26% for Tory Fillon, 24% for far right Le Pen + 5% for hard-rightist NDA, so that’s 55% in total.

    The last category c) is interesting as it leans to the centre and left: 30% for Macron, 17% for far left Mélenchon (many Labour-type voters who would traditionally have voted for the Socialists voted for him) and 8% for the Socialists (Hamon).

    Category a) represents the traditional, conservative strand of the Catholics: generally practising/devout people, with strong views on traditional family values, identity, sexuality, abortion, marriage etc.
    In France, the “Cathos tradis” are firmly part of this cohort. There aren’t millions of Cathos tradis but there has been a reasonably strong renaissance of that group in recent years in France, eg in 2012-2013 for the sizeable and vocal Manif Pour Tous movement (against same-sex marriage), their biggest three national marches in 2013 collectively drew nearly 1 million people. Their motivations are partly religious, partly ideological/political (they advocate the “defence” of Western values against a changing world, and notably what they see as an encroachment of Islam in France and Western Europe, although they don't necessarily phrase it like that). In Brazil and the USA, the counterparts of the “Cathos tradis”, the Evangelicals, are numerous, influential and voted en masse respectively for Bolsonaro and Trump.

    Category b) Catholic voters are somewhere in the middle but on balance probably lean towards category c) below.

    Category c) are very different. I would surmise that most Catholics in that category hail from the “Christian-social tradition/heritage” and the humanist currents, namely occasionally practising/non-practising Christians with more progressive views on social/societal issues and who tend to advocate solidarity, to be more open-minded, more benevolent towards foreigners, migrants, refugees etc. Catholics in this cohort tend to vote left/centre or at the very least against the hard right.

    But it really isn’t an easy electorate to read as, beyond this type of categorisation, there are financial considerations that come play in their vote too when it comes to the crunch. For instance, in the last French Presidential elections and subsequent Parliamentarian elections (a month later, 577 MPs elected), it became clear that many upper or middle-class/well-off practising Catholics, a good chunk of the proportion of practising Catholics, didn’t vote for the far right in the first or second round as they feared that any instability or attempts to come out of the EU could have crashed the French economy and therefore affected their own € situation (savings, value of their property etc.) or that of their family. That said, the proportion of actual practising Catholics is probably the lowest among the three categories of Catholics as per these French studies and polls I’m referring to.

    So Chelsea2, when you write "Most Christians I know are left-leaning", what category would you put these people and yourself, a, b and c?
    lanokia likes this.
  6. eleanorms

    eleanorms Occasional commenter

    1) It's not really anybody else's business if Christians vote for Tories or not.
    2) I think I am less belligerent and vocal about my Christian faith than many here are about their lack of it.
    3) Would this post have been written, and gleefully reposted here, if the white was replaced with another colour and Christian replaced with Muslim? I don't think so.
  7. Jude Fawley

    Jude Fawley Star commenter

    What different kinds of Christians? You're either washed clean in the blood of Christ or you aren't. There's no gradiations: you're either saved by grace or you're doomed to eternal sin (separation from 'God').

    Maybe you're thinking about church-goers. Very few church-goers are Christians.
    towncryer likes this.
  8. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Go to America
  9. peter12171

    peter12171 Star commenter

    I wasn’t aware of that. I was just going by my own experiences as an organist in a few churches, where there has been a distinctly leftward lean amongst the congregation, and moreso amongst the clergy.
  10. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

  11. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    I'll say. Which is one of the arguments against atheism.
  12. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    I'm not sure how many new ideas I'm going to get from being lectured at about Trump by some "progressive evangelist" who blogs for the HuffPo but I suppose changing anyone's mind isn't the point of this sort of thing. The point is advertising one's own assumed virtue and getting attention.

    Don't regret much in my life but I do regret that I was already middle aged before I realized just how much money/status/publicity awaits anyone who is willing to tell liberals (or, to be fair, conservatives too) what they want to hear. Totally missed out on that gravy train.
  13. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Because I couldn't afford to get ill.
  14. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    Cmon . Lots of people who go, can afford the travel insurance. Just like going anywhere outside the EU
  15. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    I was thinking more of those who live there and have no medical insurance. Horrendous. Not something I want to see here.

  16. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    Or you could just take two minutes and Google it, like I suggested. Wouldn't have to worry about that carbon footprint either.
  17. artboyusa

    artboyusa Star commenter

    I was just thinking about how different the US constitution would be if it had been written by 21st century atheists instead of 18th century Deists: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator - a bacteria that just showed up one day out of nowhere somehow and formed everything through a process of random entropy, which is totally not unbelievable- with certain inalienable rights..."
  18. peter12171

    peter12171 Star commenter

    I think any reference to aliens could be problematic.
  19. fraisier

    fraisier Senior commenter

    The answer to your Q is detailed in my post #25, you clearly haven't read it or only scan-read it. It's long I know, but the first para should suffice, it goes:

    There are some key distinctions to make here between different types of Christians, as GDW has hinted in her post #13. We could for instance distinguish between the following three categories:

    a) the committed practising Christians
    b) the occasionally practising Christians
    c) the non-practising Christians

    Basically, a Christian is a Christian you're right but in terms of psephology and voting patterns, it is now well-documented that the strength of the faith (roughly the 3 a, b, c categories above) is a determining factor.
  20. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    It would have saved a lot of ink to have just written:

    "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are equal",

    If they were really that great a proclamation, it should have read 'people'.

    Bringing in the idea of a god also allowed slavery to be justified to the bible believers as well.

Share This Page