Do left-wingers have a problem with how they talk about religion?

[TheReckoning]

Take Türkiye, for example, where despite how a lot of people hate Erdogan, still felt like they had no choice but to support him, because of how hostile the left-wing party was to their religion (like historically supporting banning observant religious people from certain institutions). Do you think this is a widespread problem leftists have?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not for the same reason as Turkey of course and that's an insane comparison, but overall yes, mostly because of how ignorant liberals tend to be when talking about evangelical voters....it seems a decent chunk of such extremely online people seem to think the average evangelical is like the characters on that stupid f[inks]ing godawful Moral Orel show. And like I noted here many also seem to think that all evangelicals are like a Frankenstein of various theologies that pretty much does not exist, (as in there obviously exist people who believe some of those things, but someone who believes ALL of them is pretty much non-existent, much less the average evangelical.)

(The absolutely strangest such belief is probably the notion that KJV-Onlyists make up the majority of evangelicals or even majority of Christians when they're probably at most something like 0.1% of American Christians.)

[Alben Barkley]

Not for the same reason as Turkey of course and that's an insane comparison, but overall yes, mostly because of how ignorant liberals tend to be when talking about evangelical voters....it seems a decent chunk of such extremely online people seem to think the average evangelical is like the characters on that stupid f[inks]ing godawful Moral Orel show. And like I noted here many also seem to think that all evangelicals are like a Frankenstein of various theologies that pretty much does not exist, (as in there obviously exist people who believe some of those things, but someone who believes ALL of them is pretty much non-existent, much less the average evangelical.)

(The absolutely strangest such belief is probably the notion that KJV-Onlyists make up the majority of evangelicals or even majority of Christians when they're probably at most something like 0.1% of American Christians.)

KJV Onlyists may well be a majority of rural Kentuckians based on my anecdotal experience. Certainly it’s more than you think.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Not for the same reason as Turkey of course and that's an insane comparison, but overall yes, mostly because of how ignorant liberals tend to be when talking about evangelical voters....it seems a decent chunk of such extremely online people seem to think the average evangelical is like the characters on that stupid f[inks]ing godawful Moral Orel show. And like I noted here many also seem to think that all evangelicals are like a Frankenstein of various theologies that pretty much does not exist, (as in there obviously exist people who believe some of those things, but someone who believes ALL of them is pretty much non-existent, much less the average evangelical.)

(The absolutely strangest such belief is probably the notion that KJV-Onlyists make up the majority of evangelicals or even majority of Christians when they're probably at most something like 0.1% of American Christians.)

KJV Onlyists may well be a majority of rural Kentuckians based on my anecdotal experience. Certainly it’s more than you think.

Rural Kentucky is probably one of the few places you can find them in great numbers. It's pretty much just a fundamentalist independent Baptist thing which is in the US mostly isolated to Appalachia and the rural south.

I'd have a very difficult time finding a KJV-Only church near me despite being a much larger area. I'm not ruling out that there might be one or two random ones somewhere but that's obviously still a neglible percentage of evangelicals in the Twin Cities metro.

[politicallefty]

Why should one be able to claim religious exemption to anything they may or may not like? Where is the line drawn?

[dead0man]

I'd have a very difficult time finding a KJV-Only church near me despite being a much larger area. I'm not ruling out that there might be one or two random ones somewhere but that's obviously still a neglible percentage of evangelicals in the Twin Cities metro.

the fairly conservative S.Baptist church I grew up switched to the NIV in the late 80s/early 90s.  There were some old people who complained (there may have even been a few people who left over it, I don't remember), but most people liked the change.  It was certainly easier to read.

[WalterWhite]

The far left definitely does have a problem with its handling of religion. It is no secret that officially communist countries, such as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republicans, the People's Republic of China, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, are officially atheist, with the latter outright banning anything religious.

[Crumpets]

Yes, but I think this is more a consequence of the left usually needing to talk about religion only in the context of religious overreach and less so a consequence of the left trying to insert itself into the business of religion (although that obviously does still happen). I know of very few people on the left who choose to talk about religion absent some sort of larger political context, and almost always that context is some discussion on the role religion should play in shaping our laws and behaviors. Only very, very rarely is it about how we should be shaping others' religious views/behaviors.

[Antonio the Sixth]

tbf there is a lot of diversity in religious attitudes within the left these days. Back in the 00s the "owning the fundies" attitude was a much bigger part of liberal American identity, but these days it doesn't seem as prevalent (though these types are definitely still around).

[Ferguson97]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

[Ferguson97]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

When did I suggest that the Democrats should adopt this as a messaging strategy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

When did I suggest that the Democrats should adopt this as a messaging strategy?

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

[Ferguson97]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

When did I suggest that the Democrats should adopt this as a messaging strategy?

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

When did I suggest that the Democrats should adopt this as a messaging strategy?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

When did I suggest that the Democrats should adopt this as a messaging strategy?

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

When did I suggest that the Democrats should adopt this as a messaging strategy?

In your post. What should Democrats use as a messaging strategy if denigrating religion is not on the table?

[darklordoftech]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

Running against “theocracy” and “puritanism” actually would win the Democrats more votes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

Running against “theocracy” and “puritanism” actually would win the Democrats more votes.

That is not the same thing as spouting Reddit neckbeard style platitudes.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

Running against “theocracy” and “puritanism” actually would win the Democrats more votes.

That is not the same thing as spouting Reddit neckbeard style platitudes.

It's also not true—not because it would offend people necessarily, but because normal Americans just don't think in that register.

[VBM]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

Fergie is morally right in this case, though obviously it would be a bad strategy electorally to target religion

[VBM]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

Running against “theocracy” and “puritanism” actually would win the Democrats more votes.

That is not the same thing as spouting Reddit neckbeard style platitudes.

You always accuse an atheist of being a Redditor when you can't counter their arguments. Get new material

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

Running against “theocracy” and “puritanism” actually would win the Democrats more votes.

That is not the same thing as spouting Reddit neckbeard style platitudes.

You always accuse an atheist of being a Redditor when you can't counter their arguments. Get new material

Can't counter the argument? You just admitted this would be an absolutely terrible electoral strategy.

[VBM]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

Running against “theocracy” and “puritanism” actually would win the Democrats more votes.

That is not the same thing as spouting Reddit neckbeard style platitudes.

You always accuse an atheist of being a Redditor when you can't counter their arguments. Get new material

Can't counter the argument? You just admitted this would be an absolutely terrible electoral strategy.

I guess it would be more appropriate to say you accuse an atheist of being a Redditor when they say something you don't like (which frequently includes giving an argument you can't counter)

[darklordoftech]

Yes, they’re not nearly critical enough.

Yes, this would totally win the Democrats more votes.

Running against “theocracy” and “puritanism” actually would win the Democrats more votes.

That is not the same thing as spouting Reddit neckbeard style platitudes.

True, but I think what I’m talking about is what Ferguson had in mind, not Reddit neckbeard platitudes.

[Battista Minola 1616]

While the premise of the original post is absurd (the left in the United States and in most countries is not nearly as anti-religious as the CHP), I think the way this thread has devolved in the last dozen posts or so is itself proof that American liberals at least do have a problem with how they talk about religion.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

While the premise of the original post is absurd (the left in the United States and in most countries is not nearly as anti-religious as the CHP), I think the way this thread has devolved in the last dozen posts or so is itself proof that American liberals at least do have a problem with how they talk about religion.

Part of me really dreads what the state of American religion will be in 20 years. If enough "True Unbelievers" start taking the reins of power as all the olds retire/die, then an anti-religious sentiment could easily start affecting the party. For the last several decades, the Democratic nominee has been chosen by old black voters who are more religious on the whole, but things can and do change and the overturning of Roe could definitely cause anti-religious backlash.