September 23, 2016

College whites and church whites.

The key to understanding white people in the 2016 election, in this FiveThirtyEight article, "Religion And Education Explain The White Vote":
College whites and church whites are taught different moral values in their respective houses of learning, values which trickle up into policy preferences. Members of white Christian congregations are more likely than any other racial-religious group to rank personal responsibility above structural factors, such as unequal access to education, in explaining racial disparities in income. And while secular universities rarely purport to give moral teachings to their students, research has found that college education increases tolerance.
Tolerance... presented as the other side of the spectrum from personal responsibility. Anyway, that's Theory #1. Theory #2 is:
[C]ollege whites and church whites disagree not only on value judgments but on empirical claims about the world... 
Theory #3 is "Different bubbles. The flip side of Theory No. 2":
[B]oth college whites and church whites exist in ideologically pure bubbles, where like-minded friends uncritically reinforce each other’s beliefs...
Theory #2 appeals to college whites, and Theory #3 appeals to church whites "or at least the conservative public figures who represent them:
... Rick Santorum once referred to universities as “indoctrination mills” lacking in “intellectual diversity”; Antonin Scalia lamented that the Supreme Court was composed entirely of “successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School”; Marco Rubio described “the political class” and “the mainstream media that covers them” as “out of touch with the American people.”
All the theories are true to some extent, and the polls do show a big "college white" skewing to Hillary and "church white" skewing to Trump. It's a reality in need of an explanation, and I'd say the 3 explanations cover it in a more or less polite and respectful way.

The rude and disrespectful people will easily generate additional theories: The people on the other side are dumber/crueler/selfish/racist — college/church will do that to you. 

120 comments:

rhhardin said...

Men whites and women whites would do better with the disparity.

tim in vermont said...

And while secular universities rarely purport to give moral teachings to their students

LOL. Have any kids in college? Put at least he uses the word "purport" which gives him some cover for an otherwise ridiculous claim. Ask an English professor in an East Coast university to interpret "The Taming of the Shrew" for you, then get back to me.

tim in vermont said...

The faith, bordering on fundamentalism, that liberals have that they are absolutely correct forgives all kinds of sins against honesty and fairness on their part.

Laslo Spatula said...

Church Whites often go to college.

College Whites don't often go to church.

Different resiliency tests of the bubbles.


I am The Replacement Laslo.

D.D. Driver said...

Wait, I wasn't supposed to go to both college and church? Nobody told me I had to pick. And, nobody told the Pope that he had to emphasize personal responsibility over social justice.

Owen said...

These theories are like most social "science" not very strong on the Popperion criterion of falsifiability, thus more BS than science. That said, it's always fun to speculate on why the Other is so stupid, vicious and hateful.

The Outrage Industry absolutely depends on a steady supply of victims and Others.

clint said...

Is it really true that the college-educated are more tolerant -- say, of different viewpoints -- than the church-going public?

Color me skeptical.

Ann Althouse said...

"And while secular universities rarely purport to give moral teachings to their students, research has found that college education increases tolerance."

It's the second part of that sentence that's the problem. The first part is fine because of the crucial distancing word "purport." It's the word "tolerance" that feels wrong to me. I've added the link to the article that summarizes the research, but I haven't read it. I don't know the definition of "tolerance" that is used. I'd have swallowed the second half of the sentence more comfortably if it had said: "research has found that colleges convey the moral belief that society as a whole is to blame for the problems of individuals."

Ken B said...

Class prejudice.

But I think there's more of it coming from my group -- college whites.

I've been wrong before. For instance I never knew that "deplorable" was a noun, or that there were so many irredeemable ones around. I guess a college education leaves out some important things.

Paul Snively said...

clint: Is it really true that the college-educated are more tolerant -- say, of different viewpoints -- than the church-going public?

It's important to remember that, to the Left, "tolerant" doesn't mean "tolerant." It means "abjectly enthusiastic about, preferably with public displays." Above absolutely all else, it means "completely uncritical of."

Just as "journalism" is best understood to mean "Democratic operatives with bylines," "tolerance" is best understood to mean "completely in the tank for an array of Leftist social positions." If this sound overblown, by all means, hold it up to Popperian criteria of falsifiability.

Bay Area Guy said...

The observations and commentary by Althouse are much better than 538's.

The first problem is with the classification by "whites". I don't identify as "white". I don't know many people who do. I identify as male, true. I identify as American, true. I somewhat identify as Christian, but not as forceful as the prior two.

Does "white" simply mean, "the large group of Americans, who aren't' black?"

It doesn't sit well with me. What is significant about merely being white?

A better classification is the political one between those on productive right of ANY color or religion (work hard, raise families, pay taxes, own homes, donate to charity, go to church) and those on the parasitic left of ANY color or religion (welfare state, broken families, don't pay taxes, commit crimes, kids out of wedlock, etc, etc)

This is a better classification that actually holds some significance. It's not perfect, but it actually informs the reader about who the groups are and what they stand for.

TosaGuy said...

Tolerance!

TonyM said...

American Nations by Colin Woodward is a fascinating read.

American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America

CJinPA said...

Members of white Christian congregations are more likely than any other racial-religious group to rank personal responsibility above structural factors, such as unequal access to education

Heh. We can see FiveThirtyEight's college diploma hanging proudly on the wall. In what way is there "unequal access to education" (implied here as a legitimate factor) in 2016? Outcomes per school are determined mostly by the number of people in each school who value personal responsibility.

Owen said...

Paul Snively: Agree. My snark about falsifiability is directed mostly at the Left. It worships at the altar of materialism and pretends to be scientific, but it is mostly a cloud of sentiment around a ruthless and unprincipled will to power.

In the past, and maybe again in the future, we could have a better integration of church, college, high, low, color, creed. We could have actual conversations and exchange real information. We could learn about each other and from each other, the chief lesson being trust.

But today? Not so much.

William said...

Tolerance is the most overrated virtue since chastity.

Anglelyne said...

I belong to the subgroup of progressive-hatin', non-religious "college whites", to whom "church whites" of all stripes (from groove-alicious Unitarians to flyover evangelicals) are alien cultural territory. But not alien in the way that they're alien to progressives.

Are we a vanguard, or a relic? Or a marginal sub-group best ignored by pollsters or anybody else who wants to figure out which way the wind is blowing?

Hagar said...

Isn't "whites" an old-fashioned (50yrs+) synonym for underwear?

MayBee said...

I really don't think the way we talk about politics- white people, church people, black people, women, hispanics....is good for our country. It creates a separatist culture.

Why are we doing this to ourselves? Why is it so ok to talk this way in politics?

Paddy O said...

What about Christian college whites?

Peter said...

As the sometimes-reliable Wikipedia explains, in Orwell's Newspeak "the word bellyfeel means a blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea. The word likely comes from the idea that any good Oceanian should be able to internalise Party doctrine to the extent that it becomes a gut instinct – a feeling in the belly."

Does this not describe the role of higher education in internalizing politically correct attitudes and opinions? It surely is not about reasoned debate.

William said...

Some virtues are more virtuous than others. Tolerance is more virtuous than, say, charity. Without the virtue of tolerance, all other virtues and deeds are meaningless. We must learn to hate intolerant people. They are deplorable and irredeemable and have no place in our society. There is no better way of celebrating tolerance than by despising intolerant people.

CJinPA said...

I've added the link to the article that summarizes the research, but I haven't read it. I don't know the definition of "tolerance" that is used.

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the writer is citing a 1989 paper on 1984 data looking at POLITICAL tolerance. I would have guessed racial/orientation, but in the 80s the far left was still considered "nonconformist" and therefore needing protecting.

This paper examines the effects of education and cognitive sophistication on willingness to extend civil liberties to nonconformist groups. We conducted secondary analysis of the 1984 General Society Survey data...This paper helps identify why and when (e.g., cognitive sophistication and dislike of a target group) education enhances political tolerance. We discuss the implications of the research for debates on the education-tolerance relationship.

holdfast said...

Most churchgoers don't live on the church's grounds for four to ten years, surrounding themselves with nothing but fellow parishioners 24/7 during the most formative period in their lives. Well, other than Mormons on a Mission. It's a lopsided comparison.

CJinPA said...

Are we a vanguard, or a relic? Or a marginal sub-group best ignored by pollsters or anybody else who wants to figure out which way the wind is blowing?

I think Trump's rise suggests it's best not to ignore your subgroup. While Trump's religious support, even in the primaries, is considered somewhat surprising, your subgroup is bigger, I think. It's not going away as a factor (I hope, personally.)

Paddy O said...

Tolerance seems to be defined as accepting people as they are. Correlated with happiness. Being accepted as you are brings happiness. Supposedly.

But then when happiness doesn't arrive, it must be because someone, somewhere isn't celebrating who you are.

Meanwhile, Christianity begins with the idea that we're broken and distorted versions of our real selves. And something has to change, and we can't have an idealistic version of other people to give us validation.

bagoh20 said...

Church whites are mostly taught to forgive what they disagree with, while college whites are taught to shame it, stifle it, destroy it. This we call tolerance.

Sebastian said...

Tolerance only as in Marcuse's repressive tolerance, now exercised by the left of course.

damikesc said...

The writer has never been to a church if they TRULY believe what they are writing.

And college are where they shout down anybody they don't want to hear. my church would politely listen.

Michael McClain said...

Hmmm, I go to church and I went to college (Master's degree in History and Political Science from a small regional south Texas university). Guess that means I have some sort of split-personality values system?

More pretentious bull$hit from some LibCong.

Gahrie said...

I really don't think the way we talk about politics- white people, church people, black people, women, hispanics....is good for our country. It creates a separatist culture.

Why are we doing this to ourselves? Why is it so ok to talk this way in politics?


Because identity politics is all that the Left knows anymore...it is their raison d'etre.

Identity politics has also become a path to power and a source of funding for radicals on the Left.

Old RPM Daddy said...

"And while secular universities rarely purport to give moral teachings to their students, research has found that college education increases tolerance."

Does that mean that tolerance and morals are opposites?

Gahrie said...

I would bet that the average church congregation would be far more tolerant of a married gay couple than homosexuals are of your average Christian.

robother said...

Don't ever ask a College White on what he/she thinks of Church Whites: it'll destroy your ability to swallow the whole tolerance argument (and thereby put you at risk of being shunned by the College White community).

Laslo Spatula said...

What about the difference between College Whites and College Blacks?

Is there a wider disparity there than that of Church Whites and Church Blacks?


I am The Replacement Laslo.

traditionalguy said...

Social tolerance can be part of a Christianity, once it has been stripped of its popular legalism governance tool.

But letting other people live free is unsettling to cautious Church people. Getting past that takes an actual faith and courage which has been installed by the rediscovery of Pauline Christianity (a/k/a Calvinism.)

It's not that hard to do. Trump can do it.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Trump and Clinton are both College Whites.

damikesc said...

LOL. Have any kids in college? Put at least he uses the word "purport" which gives him some cover for an otherwise ridiculous claim. Ask an English professor in an East Coast university to interpret "The Taming of the Shrew" for you, then get back to me.

Hell, college gives you "moral" lessons more than anything else. They seem to feel "shaping your minds" is far more important than "teaching" them anything.

Heh. We can see FiveThirtyEight's college diploma hanging proudly on the wall. In what way is there "unequal access to education" (implied here as a legitimate factor) in 2016? Outcomes per school are determined mostly by the number of people in each school who value personal responsibility.

And given who runs colleges and how utterly insular they are, if there is "unequal access to education", it is because of colleges not society.

If colleges accepted political differences, you'd see conservative professors. But progressives swear that conservatives "just do not want those positions". Because a job where you can farm out grunt work to TA's, fuck willing co-eds with virtually no penalties, and be basically unfireable if you get tenure is something nobody would want. Just as blacks didn't really want to vote (I almost said they didn't want integration, but based on BLM, it seems they actually do not).

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

The rude and disrespectful people will easily generate additional theories: The people on the other side are dumber/crueler/selfish/racist — college/church will do that to you.

Well, sure, but let's not forget that it's math, science, history unraveling the mysteries that all started with the big bang.

cubanbob said...

What makes white people tick? This question will occupy campaign strategists and forecasters through November. Given that voters of color have, on the whole, decided resoundingly against Donald Trump, the coveted swing voters who will decide this election are overwhelmingly white. This is nothing new, of course, but in the wake of a campaign season that has played heavily on white identity politics, rejection of diversity and race-baiting dog whistles, the specific concerns of white voters have taken on a renewed salience."

After reading this paragraph I knew the article was progressive bullshit. Just to be fair, I skimmed the rest and and lo and behold my conclusion was upheld. The cherry picking and the underlying assumptions demonstrate the setup to get to the intended conclusion.

cubanbob said...

Laslo Spatula said...
Church Whites often go to college.

College Whites don't often go to church.

Different resiliency tests of the bubbles.


I am The Replacement Laslo.

9/23/16, 8:04 AM"

Pithy. As condensed and to the point as possible. I was going to comment at the 538 site by posting your observation (with attribution of course) but I don't use Twitter. Just for fun R L post your observation at the 538 site just for fun and to see how the author can tie himself into an even more convoluted pretzel.

robother said...

"The cherry picking and the underlying assumptions demonstrate the setup to get to the intended conclusion."

But, but Five Thirty Eight is all about statistically robust political/social science!

Chuck said...

Am I to understand, that the twice-divorced, confessed adulterer, gambling magnate, pro-gay marriage Donald J. Trump is the choice of "Church Whites"?

What church?

CJinPA said...

Am I to understand, that the twice-divorced, confessed adulterer, gambling magnate, pro-gay marriage Donald J. Trump is the choice of "Church Whites"?

You are.

Think of 1. His America First stance (controversial to some, common sense to most.) 2. their current lack of options.

David said...

Blather.

Chuck said...

Laslo asks a good question! Two of them, in fact!

Laslo Spatula said...
What about the difference between College Whites and College Blacks?

Is there a wider disparity there than that of Church Whites and Church Blacks?


College Whites are completely unlike College Blacks. Church Whites are completely unlike Church Blacks. College and Church Blacks are mostly alike. They are 90%+ Democrat. There wouldn't be any gradation of color in that graphic in the link. it would be all blue. The only question would be who actually voted.

Chuck said...

Thanks, CJinPA.

1. Anybody wonder how many Sundays in the last 25 years that Donald Trump has spent in church? 30?

2. Corinthians.

Static Ping said...

How many college whites work for the government, perhaps in jobs of dubious value but high pay?

How many college whites work in circles that really hate Trump and therefore don't want to jeopardize their futures, not to mention their admittance to parties of their peers?

The statistical analysis is interesting but still simplistic.

Deirdre Mundy said...

The author of Hillbilly Elegy would point out that there's a third, larger group: Whites who are neither 'college' nor 'church.'

And they're the ones who will swing it for Trump, I think.

I mean, only 1/3 of Americans attend church weekly, and as Murray pointed out in Coming Apart, college people are more likely to be church people, too.

So 538's analysis is somewhat nonsensical, IMO.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Anybody wonder how many Sundays in the last 25 years that Donald Trump has spent in church? 30?


No! Don't you get it? Nobody wonders and nobody cares!

Look, on another thread you just demonstrated that you prefer Hillary, or the outcomes associated with Hillary, so please, just take off the mask.

CJinPA said...

Anybody wonder how many Sundays in the last 25 years that Donald Trump has spent in church?

Chuck, people aren't really wondering that. I think church-goers have a greater sense of urgency and are being more practical than you give them credit for.

traditionalguy said...

Apparently Chuck has discovered that The Great Trumpsby as actually a lost sinner and without God in this world.

Is it too late to anoint Lyin' Ted as our Theocrat-in-Chief? Somebody has to save Church dupes from vulgar sinners who are winners.

Chuck said...

CJinPA said...
...
Chuck, people aren't really wondering that. I think church-goers have a greater sense of urgency and are being more practical than you give them credit for.

Well, yeah. So "Church Whites" aren't much defined by "Church." "Church Whites" have jobs, some of them in manufacturing; they want their social security and their Medicare drug benefits. They don't like the possibility of race riots in the neighboring city that they drive through on their way to work.

They (rightfully) have their own ideas, preferences and beliefs. Going to church is one indicator. But are they really "Church" whites?

Gahrie said...

1. Anybody wonder how many Sundays in the last 25 years that Donald Trump has spent in church? 30?

If you exclude campaign appearances...I bet as many or more than Clinton.

Static Ping said...

"Tolerance" as currently used in left-wing circles is so warped as to mean, at times, the exact opposite of the dictionary definition of "tolerance." The word has been kidnapped, raped, and is in the process of being murdered.

"Scientific literacy" means it takes slightly more effort to fool someone into believing something ridiculous. It's not as impressive as it sounds.

Bruce Hayden said...

Part time of the problem here is the use of the word "tolerance". They don't really mean the type of tolerance that most here would mean, or they wouldn't be so aggressively intolerant of anti-progressive thought and discourse at the university. Rather, what they are calling "tolerance" is closer to a one world moral equivalence. With a bit of anti colonialism thrown in. God is dead, or at least irrelevant, so your religion is as right as mine, but maybe better if yours is not Christian, because of its colonial past. Islam is as good, if not better, because of anti colonialism and it has some good, peaceful adherents (despite preaching war, while Christianity preaches love). One noticeable difference is that modern university tolerance concentrates on group responsibility, instead of individual responsibility, and thus does not really provide a set of moral standards against which you can live your life. What may be acceptable today may be unacceptable tomorrow. For example, anti-Jewish antisemitism was acceptable up through the 1960s, went out of style for less than half a century, but is roaring back with BDS and "tolerance" for Muslims on the notable increase.

Bay Area Guy said...

Chuck asks:

Anybody wonder how many Sundays in the last 25 years that Donald Trump has spent in church? 30?

Heh -chuckles for Chuck!

You're arguing like a liberal here. Once he meets basic minimum standards, I'm much less concerned with how Trump personally wrestles with God and religion, and more concerned with his respect, tolerance and policy choices he makes that impact religious people. On the latter, he's shown respect, tolerance and policy preferences which religious folks can buy.

It's not hard!

Rick said...

Members of white Christian congregations are more likely than any other racial-religious group to rank personal responsibility above structural factors, such as unequal access to education

If the groups are split between "college graduate" and "church" isn't it entirely unremarkable the non-college group values personal responsibility more than educations "access"? After all they are in the same circumstance as the supposedly underprivileged group yet see for themselves that solid middle class lives are the norm.

cubanbob said...

"Anybody wonder how many Sundays in the last 25 years that Donald Trump has spent in church?"

Gee Chuck, I don't know and neither do you. But I will bet you dollars to doughnuts Trumpy wasn't attending The Goddamn America Church. Reverend Wright's former congregant and current disciple is campaigning for the criminal and traitor running for president.

Chuck said...

Gahrie said...
1. Anybody wonder how many Sundays in the last 25 years that Donald Trump has spent in church? 30?

If you exclude campaign appearances...I bet as many or more than Clinton.


This is an excellent, and extraneous, point. But I wasn't saying churchgoers were superior persons or preferable candidates. I was just wondering what qualities were possessed by Trump, to make him attractive to active Christians and other churchgoers.

The Hillary crowd no doubt worships at the bodegas where they get the Times on Sunday mornings.

Chuck said...

cubanbob said...
"Anybody wonder how many Sundays in the last 25 years that Donald Trump has spent in church?"

Gee Chuck, I don't know and neither do you. But I will bet you dollars to doughnuts Trumpy wasn't attending The Goddamn America Church. Reverend Wright's former congregant and current disciple is campaigning for the criminal and traitor running for president.


Trump's self-claimed Presbyterian church in Manhattan (which acknowledged that he wasn't actually a member) knows. It was almost never.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/28/politics/donald-trump-church-member/index.html

damikesc said...

Well, yeah. So "Church Whites" aren't much defined by "Church." "Church Whites" have jobs, some of them in manufacturing; they want their social security and their Medicare drug benefits. They don't like the possibility of race riots in the neighboring city that they drive through on their way to work.

We also don't want the government impeding our faith, which the Left is quite insistent on the government doing.

This is an excellent, and extraneous, point. But I wasn't saying churchgoers were superior persons or preferable candidates. I was just wondering what qualities were possessed by Trump, to make him attractive to active Christians and other churchgoers.

Well, who he is opposing is kind of key. He is the only saying he wouldn't use the force of the state to demand religious folks to ignore their faiths in their job.

chrisnavin.com said...

As a kid, I loped with a crowd of white, patriotic, intolerant sorts, up on the Appalachian plateau.

Knuckle-dragging Boy Scout leaders mostly, 2nd amendment colonialists.

Sure most could fix things, but they could never fix their wrong feelings nor wrong thoughts about tolerance.

Fixing them would have to be done with the laws, and politics.

Freedom is next.

damikesc said...


Trump's self-claimed Presbyterian church in Manhattan (which acknowledged that he wasn't actually a member) knows. It was almost never.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/28/politics/donald-trump-church-member/index.html


Amazing how curious the press is about Trump's religion, which he doesn't discuss unless asked, and they aren't curious about Hillary or Obama.

CJinPA said...

They (rightfully) have their own ideas, preferences and beliefs. Going to church is one indicator. But are they really "Church" whites?

With church membership/attendance in steady decline, people who still do so are indeed a legitimate subgroup,defined by their church attendance. Are you thinking of evangelicals maybe?

chrisnavin.com said...

Oh, and shame-circling. Lots of shame-circling.

Progress in inevitable.

Gahrie said...

I was just wondering what qualities were possessed by Trump, to make him attractive to active Christians and other churchgoers.

He's not Hillary or Jeb, and he isn't afraid of the media or P.C. culture. He actually seems to give a shit about average, everyday Americans.

Most importantly, he pisses off all the right people.

Birkel said...

All the right people is part of a Venn Diagram in which Chuck and pissed off and "the right people" overlap.

Birkel said...

Lifelong Republican Chuck, who supports Hillary Clinton, cannot understand why a subset of Republicans prefers Donald Trump.

It's as if Chuck has nothing in common with the majority of Republicans.

Strange.

Martin said...

Let me suggest that the great teacher in things like politics is history and understanding human nature, and the Churched have a better sense of history and human nature than the Colleged. Not because they consciously read more history or psych books, which I am pretty sure they don't, but because the lessons of history and humanity are embedded in 3,000 years of religious teaching and precepts.

Whereas college these days is largely built on denying history and human nature, and twisting them to fit preconceived ideas that are in fact ahistorical and deny the nature of most people.

Contrast the indoctrination that passes for "education" in today's colleges, with the classical education in the liberal arts of 100-150 years ago. Back then, there would not have been such a gap. In part, lessons of religion and Biblical texts (and writings such as from the great rabbis like Hillel and Akiba, and early Church theologians like St. Augustine were part of what everyone learned (look no farther than Lincoln's speeches), but also that the Greek and Latin literature was steeped in reality.

I could go on, but you get the point. Which is that despite outward appearances, the Colleged are not well educated, they are credentialed but mis-educated, whereas the Churched may lack credentials but absorbed the capital-T-Truths that the Colleged have been trained to reject.

Chuck said...

Gahrie said...
...

Most importantly, he pisses off all the right people.


Lord, we confess our sins and beg Your almighty forgiveness. Grant us the strength, and the wisdom, to piss off all the right people...

Can I get an "Amen"?

Birkel said...

I am glad that Jesus fellow demonstrated the importance of not missing off those money changers in the temple.

Amen, Chuck?

Birkel said...

...pissing off...

Chuck said...

damikesc said...

Trump's self-claimed Presbyterian church in Manhattan (which acknowledged that he wasn't actually a member) knows. It was almost never.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/28/politics/donald-trump-church-member/index.html

Amazing how curious the press is about Trump's religion, which he doesn't discuss unless asked, and they aren't curious about Hillary or Obama.


I recall Obama's church, and Reverend Wright, being national news for several months. Wright got his fifteen weeks of being famous.

Anyway; I think Obama went to church pretty regularly. It was like a union meeting, or networking at the club. Important, political work.

cubanbob said...

Blogger Chuck said...
cubanbob said...
"Anybody wonder how many Sundays in the last 25 years that Donald Trump has spent in church?"

Gee Chuck, I don't know and neither do you. But I will bet you dollars to doughnuts Trumpy wasn't attending The Goddamn America Church. Reverend Wright's former congregant and current disciple is campaigning for the criminal and traitor running for president.

Trump's self-claimed Presbyterian church in Manhattan (which acknowledged that he wasn't actually a member) knows. It was almost never."

Almost never attending a Presbyterian Church always trumps attending (even if occasionally) the Goddamn America Church. Fortunately for her Hillary Clinton isn't a practicing Catholic. Can you imagine how long it would take for her to make a sincere confession of all her sins?

Gahrie said...

Can I get an "Amen"?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.....

We are all sinners Chuckles.....

damikesc said...

I recall Obama's church, and Reverend Wright, being national news for several months.

Months?

Try a week.

And then he gave a speech and CNN declared that they will be a "Wright-Free Zone" from then on.

And they were.

They've never asked why he hasn't stepped foot in a church SINCE then.

Nor a word about Hillary's church attendance. Funny.

Todd Galle said...

Well, Trump could always use the current Obama excuse for not attending regular services, that of distracting the attention of other congregants. I sometimes try that with my wife, but with much less success than Barack apparently.

Todd Galle said...

Especially since they moved the main service from 10am to 9am.

Chuck said...

damikesc said...
I recall Obama's church, and Reverend Wright, being national news for several months.

Months?

Try a week.


There are major headlines -- everything from additional speeches and recordings of Rev. Wright being found, to Dick Cheney(?!) commenting on the controversy -- from March, April and May of 2008. Months; not a week. I am right. You are wrong. He is Wright.

Sam L. said...

I don't believe #3 applies to Church whites nearly as much as it does College whites. Different milieus; church whites likely more in contact with more people of different backgrounds.

Terry said...

"Another possibility is that college whites and church whites disagree not only on value judgments but on empirical claims about the world. The statement “climate change is caused by human activity” is slightly more likely to be affirmed by those with a college degree; the statement “life begins at conception” is more likely to be affirmed by those with regular church attendance."
I don't believe either of these statements can be answered "yes" or "no" based on empirical knowledge ("knowledge gained by the senses").

Rocketeer said...

I was just wondering what qualities were possessed by Trump, to make him attractive to active Christians and other churchgoers.

How does "attractive" even enter into the equation, Chuck? "Attractive" is completely off the table this round. Therefore, speaking as an active Christian (but obviously, only for myself), and realizing that my choice is limited to two deeply flawed humans (hey, just like me, an active Christian!), I'd say "he's not as completely venal and compromised as Hillary" is the primary quality that nevertheless makes him my choice.

n.n said...

Stuck on [class] diversity. Negative or positive progress? Liberal? Good Americans.

Jupiter said...

"And while secular universities rarely purport to give moral teachings to their students, research has found that college education increases tolerance."

Tolerance for alcohol, certainly.

RichardJohnson said...

Some elections back, I decided that only over my dead body would I vote for a Democrat for President. Here are how the top 3 Clinton-leaning demographics lean towards Clinton

From the link:
Most Clinton-Leaning
Religious attendance Never 71%
Education Post-grad 64 %
Pop. density Urban 64%


I am in all top-3 Clinton-leaning demographics: Religious attendance never, Post-grad education, and urban resident, but I support Trump.

At the same time, those categories are somewhat fluid. While among those who do not attend church, there are many who have much scorn for those who attend church, I am not among those who scorn churchgoers. One of my grandmothers was a Fundamentalist Christian. While I didn't agree with her on matters of religion and other matters, I had much love and respect for her and saw a great deal of tolerance and humility in her. My education is in STEM and thus not tainted by the ideological blinkers of those who have been running humanities and social science departments for decades. While I am an urban resident, I was born and raised in the countryside and still retain much of a "country hick" viewpoint.

damikesc said...

There are major headlines -- everything from additional speeches and recordings of Rev. Wright being found, to Dick Cheney(?!) commenting on the controversy -- from March, April and May of 2008. Months; not a week. I am right. You are wrong. He is Wright.

Chuck, let's be real for a moment, shall we?

The press BURIED the story quickly. Some conservatives mentioned it. That is not the press covering a story. It's like saying "Well, there REALLY was a question about contraception being banned in the GOP primary in 2012 because, after all, George DID ask about it"

You cannot be this fucking dense.

n.n said...

Theory #1 appeals to "moderates". The people sitting on the wall in rite-ous judgment.

Anyway, the reconciliation of moral, natural, and personal imperatives reveals individual character (e.g. principles), and bears only a correlation with their "skin color".

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Anybody wonder how many Sundays in the last 25 years that Donald Trump has spent in church?

No.

Do you think that God is only accessible on Sunday's at a certain time in the morning, in a building called a church?

OR can God be everywhere and your religious feelings towards God available at anytime, anyplace. That your religion can manifest in ways other than sitting in a pew and singing (off key) from some written words in a book?

College whites like to think that they are more "tolerant" but that is because they don't understand what tolerance is. They think that tolerant must equal acceptance. That is not the case. You can be tolerant of something but still refuse to accept it into your moral code.

Church people, white, black and other variations of pigmenatation, understand this difference. You can be tolerant of the gay person in your community, tolerant of their same sex marriage. It doesn't mean that you must approve, celebrate or accept it. College whites insist that you not only tolerate but that you MUST also accept and approve.



jebkinnison.com said...

Progressive academia looks a great deal like a disorganized church, with heresies, indulgences, and ritual signalling. Imagine a polity where hardworking citizens are heavily taxed to support hilltop fortress-monasteries where religious scholars pursue their studies and hand down edicts on how to live properly. The people start to resent being told what to do in the most minor matters, and being taxed for it as well.

The funding of student loans is a huge hidden subsidy, since most of them in recent years will never be repaid, and the bloated universities buffered the progressives inside. Public employees and academics are the core ideologues of progressivism. The social science researchers granted public money to do "studies" supporting progressive interventions are another abuse, and we now discover most of their "research" isn't reproducible science, but disguised advocacy.

The knowledge that government is funding the meddlesome tormenters who want to dismantle your culture and religion and program your children to repudiate your beliefs ought to result in the defunding of academia and all government PR and propaganda efforts. Billions of dollars spent to support people who not only aren't productive, but whose purpose in life is to stop those who are from accomplishing anything.

Chuck said...

damikesc: Bullshit.

It was on the FNC, wall to wall, and all if the conservative media as long as anybody could stand it. And yes it was on the broadcast media and if NBC and the Times didn't cover it the way you want, well boo hoo. What a surprise that they would displease both of us. The right wing shouldn't be such pussies. They have enough media to have created Trump.

And no; I am not backing down one inch from the assertion that national media stories were percolating for months; specifically March, April and May of 2008 and anybody who wants to fight it can pick your favorite news outlet and search those months. If you like, you can go to the Wikipedia page for the Jeremiah Wright controversy and check the footnoted articles from those months.

Doug said...

I'd rather take sex education from a celibate priest than moral instruction from a liberal professor. The priest may lack practicum to his instruction, but he'll have theory correct. The professor has neither theory nor practicum correct

Gahrie said...

Don't challenge Chuckles on outrages against Democrats......he's been defending Democrats against them for a long while now.

Birkel said...

damikesc:
"Chuck... You cannot be this fucking dense."

Chuck:
"damikesc: Bullshit."


I'm calling this one for Chuck. Chuck can be this fucking dense.

Chuck said...

Gahrie said...
Don't challenge Chuckles on outrages against Democrats......he's been defending Democrats against them for a long while now.


You are merely trolling me. Because if you wanted to have a real fight about this, you'd quote me from someplace where I, like, actually Defended or promoted a Democrat and it just doesn't exist.

Do it. Quote me, with a link. Better make it really fucking good, now that I have called you out.

Birkel said...

...said Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter.

Fabi said...

You're defending the MSM's treatment of Obama's pastor on this thread, Chuck. And no, the very few references in those months are hardly significant coverage. Other than FNC, it's close to a cover up.

By the way: you're the only Real Republican I've ever known to call the right wing 'pussies'. That hardly bolsters your case.

Birkel said...

Chuck will find the one True Scotsman.

Like O.J. found the real killer on those golf courses.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
You're defending the MSM's treatment of Obama's pastor on this thread, Chuck.


The fuck I am. I am saying the opposite, and you guys don't want me to get away with that, somehow. I am saying that the media did give that story a lot of play, for months, and a careful search of the leading news sites from all over confirms it.

And no, the very few references in those months are hardly significant coverage. Other than FNC, it's close to a cover up.

And Rush Limbaugh, and the 18 Rush-Lites, and the National Review Online, and the Weekly Standard and the American Spectator. All the conservative outlets who are now either in the tank for Trump, or who have taken a very public principled stand against Trump. If Jeremiah Wright was covered up, how'd you hear about him? How did the whole freaking country start talking about him and watching video clips of him on FNC?

By the way: you're the only Real Republican I've ever known to call the right wing 'pussies'. That hardly bolsters your case.

I wouldn't call the folks who signed on to the NeverTrump editorials at NRO "pussies." I would save the "pussies" epithet for Birkel, and Gahrie, and you. And all the Trumpkins who are shocked, shocked that the walking, talking gaffe machine known as Trump is getting worked over by the mainstream media.

Gahrie said...

And all the Trumpkins who are shocked, shocked that the walking, talking gaffe machine known as Trump is getting worked over by the mainstream media.

Chuckles, you ignorant slut....

We're not shocked at the treatment Trump is getting. if you really were a Republican you would understand that we expect this sort of treatment from the MSM, because it always happens, whoever the Republican candidate is. This is in fact one of the reasons the Trump candidacy exists.

We just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy and corruption of the media and the Clintons...something you would understand and enjoy too if you were a Republican.

Gahrie said...

I wouldn't call the folks who signed on to the NeverTrump editorials at NRO "pussies."

Of course not.....why they face their "enemies" all the time over cocktails with never before seen bravery. They roll over for the Democrats with all the aplomb of an obedient dachshund. They courageously stab Conservatives in the back while promising reforms that never come.

Pussies are the people who actually want to fight the democrats and risk the horrors of the MSM.

Birkel said...

Chuck:

It's a terrible tragedy that you are unable to form a cogent argument and must resort to name calling. I support your right, as a conservative, to support the candidate who wishes to grow the power and influence of centralized government. Because only longtime Republicans like you can make that courageous choice. Pussies like me who support individual freedom and thereby smaller government will take cold comfort that we are less pure than you.

Your support for Clinton is a choice.

Chuck said...

They roll over for the Democrats with all the aplomb of an obedient dachshund. They courageously stab Conservatives in the back while promising reforms that never come.
Pussies are the people who actually want to fight the democrats and risk the horrors of the MSM.


What "compromises" have been made, by George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Kevin Williamson and the other NeverTrumpers? Where have they been soft? What unfulfilled "promises" are they responsible for?

I thought Trump and the Trumpkins didn't care about fancy "conservatism." Not when there are U.S. auto plants to protect with tariffs, and not when votes can be won, with promises to never reform entitlements. Trump is proudly not a conservative, right? That is what I've been told. It might be the one Trumpism I believe.

virgil xenophon said...

Anglelyne way up @ 8:32am/

My gal! M'thinks we're a vanishing breed. A relic marginal sub-group at best..

Gahrie said...

Trump is proudly not a conservative, right?

Nope.

But so what? The last real Conservative nominee was Reagan.

HT said...

Wait, what? Is he saying the two are mutually exclusive and is everyone here assuming they are - or is it understood that whites either identify more with church or college? What are the definitions?

Birkel said...

Chuck bravely demands to know what compromises private citizens have made, while elected officials betray conservative principles...

...as any True Conservative would.

Harold said...

Bay Area Guy said...

The first problem is with the classification by "whites". I don't identify as "white". I don't know many people who do. I identify as male, true. I identify as American, true. I somewhat identify as Christian, but not as forceful as the prior two.


Once again, the self-identification question. Liberals have been trying for the better part of my 61 year life to get whites to identify as white, and for the most part, have not succeeded. A lot of commenters at voxday seem to; but as yet, they're a minor minority. When asked "What are you?", American, Father, husband, (Job title or rank), Religion, and other things pop up in the top 5 for whites, but rarely white. For blacks, black is always number 1 or 2 on the list. And for whites who keep listing until they get to an ethnic identity, it will be Irish, Scotch, French, Italian, Greek, Italian, or whatever part of their heritage they identify with. In order to divide and conquer, you first need to divide. The U.S. Motto is "E Pluribus Unum", from many, one. You can keep eating haggis if you want, but you're no longer Scot, you're an American. And if you're of Irish descent, you can marry that English descended guy. Good thing, too, or I wouldn't be here.

As for chrisnavin.com who said...
As a kid, I loped with a crowd of white, patriotic, intolerant sorts, up on the Appalachian plateau.

Knuckle-dragging Boy Scout leaders mostly


Knuckle dragging Boy Scout leaders? What? Did they believe, like I do, that the first part of the oath "On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty, to God and my country" should retain it's reference to God? And that the 10th law "A Scout is reverent" should remain as is? As a college educated (Occasional) church going American with a BS in Political Science, who attends Scout roundtables monthly, and meets other Scoutmasters from all over the district, most of whom are college educated, all of whom are gainfully employed or retired after a lifetime of employment, I don't see your stereotype anywhere. I do notice that almost all the sex or racial harassment issue that come up locally are from high school athletes who aren't also Scouts.

Birkel said...

Harold:

You may have missed sarcasm from chrisnavin.

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
Chuck bravely demands to know what compromises private citizens have made, while elected officials betray conservative principles...

...as any True Conservative would.

No, you moron. It was Gahrie, not me, who accused the NeverTrump columnists that I mentioned, of making false promises to Republican voters. They didn't promise anything! They weren't running for office! They didn't betray anybody, and they didn't cast any budget votes. They didn't "stab any conservatives in the back."

They are columnists.

Geezus you are some stupid fucks.

Birkel said...

Chuck:

You say Gahrie mentioned those columnists? Those in particular? Maybe I missed it. Link?

Harold said...

Birkel said...
Harold:

You may have missed sarcasm from chrisnavin.


As a practitioner, I can usually recognize sarcasm. Sometimes it needs a tag. That needs a tag.

Chuck said...

Birkel said...
Chuck:

You say Gahrie mentioned those columnists? Those in particular? Maybe I missed it. Link?


No, no, no. I mentioned the conservative columnists who wrote the content for the NRO Never Trump issue. (5:13) And then Gahrie (5:31) wrote this in part:

They roll over for the Democrats with all the aplomb of an obedient dachshund. They courageously stab Conservatives in the back while promising reforms that never come.

Which is why I asked which voters did the columnists disappoint? The columnists didn't run for office; they made no promises; they never passed any budget resolutions. When did any of them ever "roll over" for any Democrats? And which conservatives did they "stab... in the back"?

Don't make me explain this to you again.




Birkel said...

So you mentioned them? And then Gahrie used an indefinite pronoun. And you assigned that indefinite pronoun the meaning you preferred.

Excellent.

Do explain.

Chuck said...

You are such a nasty little waste of my time, Birkel.

Char Char Binks said...

Progressives now consider tolerance a microaggression.

Birkel said...

Well, then you should quit supporting Hillary Clinton and lying about it. Also, quit the name calling. It gives you away as a petty person.

Out and proud, Hillary supporter!!

Fabi said...

You spent a lot of time dodging my point, Chuck, and then called me a pussy. That's pretty funny. Last week you were decrying that Trump supporters were sullying this blog. Up your game.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck: blabbity blah...now that I have called you out.
9/23/16, 4:43 PM

I've called you out repeatedly and you ignore where you don't run away. Don't ask "where," you have branded on your shriveled soul all the threads where I cut you dead and you crawled away, or those where you responded to one point out of eight or so.

Or, if words aren't your thing, I invited you to come to New York and let me show you the sights.

Buk-buk-begawk from the Chuckster Chicken.

It really doesn't matter because like your mistress the Hildabeast, m'lad, you are melting. I do assure you that nobody feels any compunction whatsoever about ignoring you anymore. You are a nothing and you wear it on your sleeve. If you turned around and endorsed Trump nobody would care.

iowan2 said...

Iam so fucking tired of being assigned character traits by traits that have nothing to do with character.

Fucking leftist are all for diversity...to pit one against another.

70% of the Charlotte rioters are from out of state.

That is the Democrat party.