Just over half of interviewees (51%) in a Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University study, who identified as “people of faith,” responded that they are likely to vote in the presidential election between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. The “people of faith” label is given to those who identify with a recognized religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism or Islam.

The study found that approximately 104 million people under the “people of faith” umbrella are not expected to vote this election, including 41 million born-again Christians and 32 million who regularly go to church.

  • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 minutes ago

    I skimmed the study itself but couldn’t find how this compares to 2020 turnout of the same group. Just that it’s “lower” and has a +/- of 4% margin.

  • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Calling BULLSHIT. What part do they disagree when it comes to religion?

    1. Child sex - supported by religion.
    2. Rape - supported by religion.
    3. Killing the innocent - supported by religion.
    4. Controlling women - supported by religion.
    5. Anti LGBTQ+ - supported by religion.
    6. Hatred of other races - supported by religion.

    So what is it that will make them change this time?

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    58 minutes ago

    That seems odd to me considering that antiabortion rules are on the line. I would think they’d be especially motivated to support Trump and get the Senate flipped Republican to keep a federal law from getting implemented to reverse the decision that government can force doctors to let you die if a fetus is the one killing you.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Anecdotal, but there was considerable dissatisfaction and exhaustion with Trump amongst the religious in my hometown back in 2020. Most of them still supported and voted for him, but that any peeled off was novel. Not that they’d ever vote Dem, but simply not voting GOP in a presidential election was a big deal. It’s not inconceivable that the number has increased since.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Perhaps one or two could even be convinced to support the party that advocates for charity, kindness and goodwill to the poor. Responsible stewardship of gods creation. Openness to forgiveness and redemption for criminals. Treating your neighbors well. Just generally doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, even when you do not fully understand them.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        33 minutes ago

        They’re fine with charity as long as they decide who is deserving of the money. They love government handouts as long as they are going to Christofascist pursuits. Just as Jesus taught us, I guess.

        • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 hours ago

          No, let’s stick to pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps the same way Jesus did: by having a powerful father.

      • bluGill@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Too bad no such party exists. Many will claim some of that, but their actions show it is false.

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I would argue support for higher taxes, social services, more environmental regulation and criminal justice reforms like Harris’ Back On Track program are indicative of pretty strong actions in support of those principles.

          • bluGill@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            3 hours ago

            You can do that. Many others would argue differently. There is no particular reason to think anyone is correct - even though everyone likes to think they are right all the time.

            Don’t forget that stated support for something and actions often tell very different stories.

            • Carrolade@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              2 hours ago

              So how about capping the price of several prescription drugs, resulting in lower profits for pharma companies? Or Walz implementing free school lunches in Minnesota? Those actions speak about anything to you?

              • bluGill@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 hour ago

                Plenty of ecconomicists have said why capping prices are bad. That you read others is your choice. This is supposed to be an exercise in undertanding, not an exercise in convincing someone they are wrong. So quit asking what I think. Instead understand what and why they think - they are not stupid.

                • Carrolade@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  52 minutes ago

                  It’s not about whether capping some prices is good or bad for the economy. It’s about whether it helps poor people or not, whether its something in-line with Christian principles of helping the poor.

                  You were asking for actions that back up their words, so I give you actions that show one party is much more in-line with Jesus’ teachings. Where the other one just spits on them while waving an upside-down bible for a photo op.

  • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    It’s not enough to not to vote. It’s critical the we vote AGAINST any and all of these extremists. That’s the only way to begin bringing any sanity to our political dialogue.

    • Countess425@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      We live in a two party system. Not voting for your guy is essentially a vote for the other guy. Especially when elections are this close.

      • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        That’s the most common misconception. Not voting for your guy does NOT mean a vote for other guy.

        Here is an example:

        Let’s say you don’t want candidate B to win but you chose to not vote against B and just sit at home or write in your dog’s name instead.

        Candidate A: gets 1000 votes

        Candidate B: gets 1002 votes

        100 people like you didn’t vote or wrote their dog’s name on ballot.

        B wins!

        This is what I meant by “actively voting against” vs just not voting.

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          44 minutes ago

          So not voting for your guy (candidate A) lead to the other guy (candidate B) winning. Seems like you agree with the premise that in our 2 party system, not voting for the candidate you want directly helps the candidate you don’t want.

        • Countess425@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          37 minutes ago

          By your own logic if A wins by 1 vote and you chose not to vote for your guy, B, you essentially gave your vote to A. Good job.

  • DragonTail@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    51
    ·
    4 hours ago

    You get handed a bag of snakes, all are lethal, and they demand you pick one. I just have to pass on the snake bite. We are slaves to them, and this is an illusion of the freedom of choice, nothing more.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      27 minutes ago

      Muh both sides bad. All available snakes are venomous. Therefore instead of choosing the least venomous (possibly survivable) snake, instead wait for the most venomous snake to slither up your own colon so you can look it in the eyes.

    • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      A Republican rep from Indian wants mixed race marriage to be a state matter. I am white, my partner is Mexican. If he gets what he wants, our relationship will be a crime in at least his state.

      There are no Democrats openly advocating for my marriage to be a crime.

      It seems not all of those snakes aim to kill me.

    • Draghetta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      That’s not how it is though, is it. By not voting you are not exempting yourself from political life, you just choose not to matter.

      You are not passing on the snake bite. You are letting others choose the snake for you.