In the US, most people, including most liberals, are religious so it’s not the case that most liberals see religion as mumbo jumbo. In fact, I suspect it’s a fairly small minority who think that way.
I had a poli sci professor who explained that my views on various subjects would be more accurately described not as conservative, but as reactionary.
But since I can only work with the listed options, figure I’ll miss it as close as I can.
I’m not sure. Agnostics, atheists, buddhists, UUs, etc. are heavily dem.
Granted, dem is not the same as liberal, but in todays environment up to 50% of democrats identify as liberal.
There are a lot of black protestatants and white catholics among the democratic party, but my impression is that a lot of liberals tend to lean towards the religions above (atheist, agnostics, buddhist, UU, etc). I’m not sure the % of liberals who are secularists but I’m guessing it is at least 40%.
Think that way = “To most liberals, it’s all a bunch of private mumbo jumbo”
Lots of atheists are still respectful of the religiously inclined, and would not disrespect a religious person’s beliefs as “mumbo jumbo”.
There is definitely a correlation between religious beliefs or lack thereof and party affiliation, but it’s important to note that “agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, UUs, etc. are mostly supporters of the Democratic Party”–which is true; 69% of Buddhists are Democrats or lean Democrat, as are 54% of the “nones”–is not the same thing as “supporters of the Democratic Party are mostly agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, UUs, etc.”.
Some actual data (from 2014) from the Pew Research Center indicates that Democrats are less religious than independents, who are less religious than Republicans; even so, 55% of Democrats/Democratic-leaning voters believe in God and are “absolutely certain” about that belief–that’s lower than the corresponding numbers for Republicans/Republican-leaning voters (73%) or independents (62%), but it’s still a majority of the Democratic Party electorate expressing a strong belief in God. Another 21% of Democrats are “fairly certain” there is a God (which could probably be anything from a wishy-washy apatheist, to a deeply devout person who nonetheless constantly “struggles with her faith”–hell, it turns out Mother Teresa had doubts about the existence of God). 13% of Democrats straight up don’t believe in God. (The comparable numbers of Republicans and independents who don’t believe in God at all are 5% and 9%, respectively.)
I looked at the numbers according to Pewforum.org on religion in Kentucky a few months ago, for political reasons. 76% call themselves Christians, 49% call themselves Evangelicals. In Minnesota, a bit more liberal of a state, 74% call themselves Christians (a very small difference), but only 19% call themselves Evangelicals.
In California, a much more liberal state, 63% call themselves Christians, a significant drop, but 20% call themselves Evangelicals, very close to Minnesota’s rate.
What was interesting was the ‘Unaffiliated’.
Kentucky: 22%
Minnesota: 20%
California: 27%
So while it is a bit higher in California, it is neither excessively so, or anywhere near the number that call themselves Christians. I was also interested to see that in Kentucky, a very red state where half the population call themselves Evangelicals, they have 2% more unaffiliateds than we do in Minnesota.
My positions on individual issues are mostly conservative or liberal but if you average them I’m a moderate. I identify myself as a centrist Democrat when asked.
I’m a Logical Solutionist.
If you want to conduct a real “screw nuance” poll, you need to give your OWN hard definitions of those terms as a part of it. I’m not whining or trying to avoid committing, I just have the problem of knowing too much, and have been around too long. Those labels don’t mean what they did when I was young, and certainly don’t mean what they did when they were first applied to politics and social issues.
If you are an American, and you DON’T actively want to return to rule by royal decree, you are a capital L liberal, no matter how many hippie-types you want to burn at the stake.
I’m a very conservative person. But I will often be found voting or arguing in support of CONSERVATIVE concepts and proposals, in order to defend my old style LIBERAL right to be conservative, and defending LIBERAL ideas, in order to make my CONSERVATIVE lifestyle easier to enjoy.
igor frankensteen: Just as one example, it’s very possible to take a “liberal” pro-life point of view (“every life should have the opportunity to live to its full potential”) and a “conservative” pro-choice point of view (“a woman should have property rights over her own body.”)
This isn’t the way it has fallen out in practice, and so “liberal” and “conservative” have “party and platform” connotations. Today, pro-life is conservative and pro-choice is liberal, but that’s partly historical contingency, not intrinsic definition.
That said, the OP question and poll can easily be taken as asking which of these “party platforms” one subscribes to. That’s the way I answered and voted.
(I’m very liberal, politically, although I am very conservative – I hate change! – psychologically.)
I used to know a guy that I described as “so far to the right he wrapped around the back and came out on the left”. One day he just vanished - leaving behind a house, wife and daughter. No confirmed sightings since. Fot this and other reasons, we weren’t surprised to learn many years later that he had been a deep-cover Soviet agent.
The line was crossed (for me) when these guys bragged about getting an O-1 (exceptional talent of national benefit) for a Playboy Bunny.
Honestly? If it’s a choice between giving her a slot and an Indian programmer of mediocre ability who went to a diploma mill and has exaggerated credentials? I mean, *assets *like that don’t grow on trees and I can’t say she doesn’t offer something that we need more of in America…
All I asked was which of the three choices offered did you believe yourself closest to be, however you define the term. If you think the question is tied somehow to party or political platform that’s on you, not me.
So, adding two more points, libertarian and totalitarian, as on the Nolan chart, is a nuance? Screw your biased poll; I don’t fit on it.
I was liberal, when liberal wasn’t cool.
I’m a leftie liberal atheist, exactly who your whacky dad said is trying to take over the country.
Oh, except on the gun issue. Firearms are a tool, nothing more. I’m fine with requiring registration and training. I’m fine with a background check. So many liberals are freaked out by firearms where I live, it’s really quite sad.
Moderate, but leaning liberal. I can see valid positions on both sides and I’m a big advocate for conversation and compromise - you know, like reasonable people should do.
In defiance of my sig, I’m far left.
- This isn’t the 20 question Nolan Chart quiz, and doesn’t pretend to be.
- If you think you can create a political poll that satisfies everyone, I invite you to give it a try-I think it would be a first.
- Nobody is insisting that you personally take my little poll.
I’m a pragmatist, that makes me a liberal apparently.
I don’t really think of myself as a liberal but every time I take a test to place me on the political spectrum I end up further to the left than any example person they have on the list.
In actuality I just favor any policy that has been shown to work. It just happens that most conservative “solutions” are based on outmoded thinking and the ignoring of evidence.
I chose “liberal”, because I’m definitely not a conservative, and lean to far left to be moderate; but really, I’m a social democrat.
So, “liberative”, then. Or “conservebral”, although that makes you sound like a piece of museum-grade furniture…
I chose “liberal” but mostly because I’m an anarchist who believes people should be able to do whatever they want, and “liberal” means someone who supports liberty and freedom, which I strongly support. But most people would call me a “radical” if anything at all. Also, I align with American conservatives on some points, like gun rights and free speech absolutism. I certainly don’t identify with any major (or minor) political party in the US.
And in a way, I’m conservative, too, in that I think that tradition is valuable, and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and that if things do need fixing, let’s phase it in as gently as we can, so as not to upset the apple cart, and give people enough time and notice to adjust. I’m not a revolutionary anarchist, who advocates for violence in overthrowing government. I’d like to see government atrophy as society demands more and more freedom, spurred on by a broad movement of writers, artists, philosophers and laborers which slowly drives cultural evolution and ultimately changes the national (or international) psyche.
Ideally, my anarchist utopia would have a social structure similar to our current society (or at least that would be one available option, as it’s clearly very popular), and overarching organizations similar to governments that could implement things like social healthcare, basic income, interstate highways, the space program and defense, except it would all be voluntary and not enforced at gunpoint.