Friday, April 21, 2023

The Wall

The other day an interesting graphic was posted on twitter which got me thinking about a post I wanted to write for a long time.


Back in 2014, The Pew Research conducted a Religious Landscape Study in the U.S. The study is interesting for its extensive demographic data which, when looked at a bit deeply is quite informative with regard to today's state of affairs.

In particular I'm interested in the data concerning households earning more than one hundred thousand dollars a year. This group or class constitutes the majority of the country's governing class. And by governing, I mean it in its most expansive context.  Within this group are found senior and middle bureaucrats, lawyers, doctors, journalists, businessmen, accountants, virologists, business men, community elders and so on. Much attention is directed towards billionaires and media celebrities but the yeoman's work of day to day governance and organising the country is done by far less notable men. It's the values of this class that set the "tone" of the country.

In theory, Democratic government grant's sovereignty to the people and technically this is true, but in reality the issues that the people get to vote on and how their day to day affairs are run are largely based on the the decisions and values of the governing class.  In a democracy some people are more equal than others.

Firstly, some Basic Demographic data.

What I've decided to do is concentrate on the major sized groups as I'm time limited and this isn't a full blown statistical survey. This covers 92% of the greater than $100K demographic. Interestingly, the impression that I've formed trawling the data is that the remaining 8% tends to cancel each other out on various values metrics. The Buddhists and the Hindus tend to be very permissive with regard to homosexuality and abortion, the Mormons and the Orthodox their opposite.  

What I've tried to do is calculate the absolute number of each religious group in the  >100K class and then determine their proportion in it. For example the Jewish community makes ups 4% of the U.S. population yet it makes up 5% of this class. If there are any errors in my calculations they are unintentional. 

If we take the above minority groups out, then the composition of the governing class in the U.S. can be broken down as follows.

The majority of the U.S. governing class is still nominally Christian. Let that sink in. The U.S. rot is a majority "Christian" affair. Jewish conspiracy theorists can also take note, the governing class of the U.S. is 95% not-Jewish.
 
The question of religious orthodoxy was quite difficult to determine based upon the questions in the survey but I concentrated on two:

a) Do you oppose/favor gay marriage.
b) Abortion should be legal/illegal in all or most cases.

I took these two questions as proxies for religious orthodoxy.  Orthodoxy being defined as what was considered broad social consensus before the Sixties revolution. I am old enough to remember when the concept of gay marriage was thought to be a laughable joke.  Things have obviously moved on a bit.
 
With regard to gay marriage the response for the class in 2014 was as follows:

Quite frankly I was shocked when I crunched the numbers and I really didn't think it was so bad. Now Obergefell was in 2015, and it's obvious to me that when the the U.S. Supreme Court decided to recognise gay marriage they were affirming what many of their social peers had already come to accept. The decision was not an impost on the country as much as a recognition that the ruling class had changed its mind. Within the leadership class the moral base and understanding of traditional conceptions of marriage had completely eroded. Also remember that the demographic that was sampled here are the "best and brightest" of their cohort.  These are the people who have the most natural ability and have been afforded the best education. We're not talking about the proletariat. From a Christian perspective, it's truly a disastrous situation.

With regard to the question of Abortion the situation is not much better:



It's pretty much the same and suggests a common causal link.  Interestingly though, in its reversal of Roe v Wade, the members of the Supreme Court would have probably earned a lot of personal and social opprobrium as a result of their decision. Say what you want about Trump, but his nominations made the difference and his crew are pushing against the tide.

Now if we accept that the above two questions as normative for what is considered "sound" Christianity,  then we can say that by 2014 the U.S. leadership class was critically de-Christianised. If you want to understand why Christians are starting to be persecuted, the pie charts above are your answer. The majority of governing apparatus does not share your view of things.  And remember, this was 2014, things have gotten a lot worse since then.

So who exactly is supporting the "slouch towards Gomorrah".
 

The figures are virtually identical. From what we can see the majority support is still from self-professed Christians.  A few things to note. Support for both abortion and homosexual marriage is roughly proportionate to the religious demographics of the 100k class with the exception of the "Nones", who over represented and the Evangelicals, who are under-represented.

So who is "manning the gates" and not supporting the abandonment of traditional mores.
 
 
The data shows that while Catholics and the Mainline Churches are represented at a rate proportional to their the membership in the 100k class,  the Unaffiliated are represented at a fourth and the Jewish at a third of their class rate. The real hero's here are the Evangelicals who are represented at nearly twice their rate.
 
So what's the take home message here?
 
Firstly, the situation is quite dire with most of the leadership class being unsympathetic to traditional mores. 
 
Secondly, Evangelicals are by far the most "Conservative" political group who punch well above their weight in pushing back the tide.  Followed by the Catholics, Historical Black Protestants,  Mainline, Jews and Unaffiliated in that order.

Thirdly, especially with regard to the Mainline Churches despite their supposedly theological liberalism, many members clearly aren't going with the flow.

Fourthly, despite it theological conservatism, the Catholic Church has not been able to translate those beliefs into the beliefs of the "rank and file" especially among those in the leadership class. I think this a major problem and one of the reasons why Catholicism, despite Vatican Two is still unable to engage modernity meaningfully. The causes for this are complex but reinforce my view that the Catholicism in its current form  is unable to push back the tide as it currently stands. Catholic thought in my opinion is good, the problem is the inability to transform Catholic thought into action.  This is a problem I feel has its roots in the Church's response to the Reformation. But more on this in a different post.

Fifthly, Evangelicals are frequently derided for their lack of intellectual sophistication but "faith without works is dead", and these guys are really doing the heavy lifting. From my Catholic perspective, there's obviously something good going on there which the Church would be well to emulate. (it can't as it currently stands). Whatever they're drinking we need to be drinking as well.

Sixthly, being a Jewish conservative is a lonely business.
 
As I loathe cognitive simplification it is important to recognise that the wall is being held up by all groups but I take my hat off to the Evangelicals.



 

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am not sure these polls show any particular defect with Catholicism compared to Protestantism. The problem with these kinds of polls is that "Mainline Catholics" and "Evangelical Catholics" (i.e. NC Reporter Catholics vs. EWTN Catholics + Trads) are effectively different religions, yet both exist within the same church, and both will ID as Catholic on these polls. It could be the "Evangelical Catholic" group is just as conservative as the Evangelical and just as large of a movement in comparison to the liberal Catholics as Evangelicals are in comparison to mainliners.

For pollsters, evangelical doesn't refer to any specific protestant tradition, it just means the conservative version of whatever the liberal mainline church is. The PCA is evangelical, the PC(USA) is mainline, both come out of the same American Presbyterian tradition and are the result of schisms within that group. To further illustrate, the Disciples of Christ, a church that stems from the low-church, Restorationist tradition and founded during the Great Awakening of the early 1800s, is generally pro-gay and modernist on theology, and goes down as "mainline" despite its rustic origins.

There's some evidence that Catholics punch above their weight on the religious right, as evidenced by Catholic leadership of the pro-life movement, and the overrepresentation of Catholics among conservative supreme court justices. Some of this may be due to geography--an Italian from Brooklyn may find it easier to rise through the political or business world than a Scots-Irish from West Virginia.

Anonymous said...

SocPath:

As a critic of "trads" with fairly right-wing politics, what is your take on the trend of alt-right racialist types associating with trad religious denominations, for example Nick Fuentes? There was a controversy in the US recently with the FBI looking into the threat of extreme Catholic white nationalist terrorism. This was mocked in Catholic circles, yet I know from experience that if you go to a Latin Mass parish in the US you will find a handful of young men who are interested in online racist/anti-Semitic politics. I'm half Jewish and chose to stop attending the latin mass partly because 5 different people I ran into made bizarre anti-Semitic jokes or brought up their admiration for E. Michael Jones at various points. It was just weird. I assume one would find the same thing at Eastern Orthodox churches or with some conservative protestants churches now. This seems to be a very recent phenomena and fueled by the internet, which for young people is "more real" than reality.

The trad churches are small enough that a influx of 20 year olds from 4chan is statistically significant. If there was a minor social trend for anime fans in their 20s to join the Freemasons (for whatever weird reason), even if the total number of anime Masons is low, after 10 or 20 years of this trend, the Masons could be swamped by the anime fans. The Masons have an aging membership and are terrible at recruiting young people. If a lodge gets 5 new members a year, and 2 are anime fans, and 10 members die off, that's very significant to the makeup of the group. I am worried that all the most "trad" versions of Christianity, including eastern orthodoxy, confessional Lutheranism, and the Catholic latin mass movement, (especially the SSPX) will be overrun by internet racists/neo-nazis with 10-20 years. The racists may find that they have more success in rising to power within these small religious groups than in secular politics, and focus their efforts towards the former.

The problem is that progressives think Christians are the moral equivalent to Neo-Nazis who "hate" gays in the same way Neo-Nazis hate blacks and jews. By this logic, those who are "anti-LGBT" should face adverse social consequences in much the same way as Neo-Nazis do. The progressives will start to uncover far-right racialists in trad churches then use this as evidence that the more conservative Christian groups were Neo-Nazis at prayer all along. Then every conservative denomination, including the Catholic Church, can be labeled a "hate group" by the SPLC and its members shunned from polite society. Both the progressives and the racialist Christians are ignorant of the decades of enmity between the religious and racialist right, the latter which gave us neo-paganism, Christian Identify, and "Cosmotheism". But this won't matter.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon

I am not sure these polls show any particular defect with Catholicism compared to Protestantism.

The interesting about this survey is that you can split the "conservative" from the "liberal" Catholics on the basis of the two questions listed they aren't simply lumped as one group.

Likewise, the evangelicals aren't simple the conservative "mainliners" there are still liberals in their ranks.

So I don't think your critique holds.

It quite plain to see from the data that within the group still standing for traditional mores, the Evangelicals are over-represented relative to their demographic weight. For me, the issue is why don't Catholics have a similar over representation given their intellectual and "spiritual" history. I think there is a problem there. Sure, Catholicism has bought forward serious intellectual firepower to short up the conservative position, yet intellectual firepower alone is not enough, it needs to be translated into mass support, something Evangelicals seem far better at doing.

@Anon 2

I'll reply tomorrow as I got home late tonight.


The Social Pathologist said...

@Anon

As a critic of "trads" with fairly right-wing politics.....

I think that the attraction of the Fuentes type to traditional Catholicism is based upon a simplistic understanding of what is going wrong with the world. The Modern world honestly disgusts a lot of men and there seems to be a desire to escape it with the simplest solution being to reject modernity.

It's a standard reactionary trope that it all went wrong following Vatican Two and therefore forms of worship which rejected V2 are thereby legitimised. Hence the attraction, especially among the cognitive misers. Jewish conspiracy theorists also fall into this category and hence it's no surprise that the two are frequently found together.

One of the things that really depresses me though, is that the pastors of these Churches are policing the membership a bit more and actively preaching against the mental poison. However I think that the clergy as so desperate for members that they've taken the liberal "pastoral approach" and hoped that they can win them over slowly. The other more regrettable explanation is that many of the clergy are "on board" with the program. They all think that turning the clock back will restore things to the way they were, not understanding that even if they could do it, it wouldn't work. These individuals have a high capacity for filtering information they don't want to here and amp up the stuff that they do.

The whole Jewish conspiracy stuff for instance is disproved by looking at the above data yet yet you cant swing them. These guys are immune to data that doesn't fit the narrative.

Are these guys going to provide a pretext for attacking the Churches? Possibly so. But even if these guys weren't there the persecution is coming. And it will be a rightful judgement for the Clergy not purging these morons from their ranks. Francis has been pushing hard recently against the anti-Semitism, but that trads are more Catholic than the pope.

Since faith is a product of Grace and Grace is freely given, we really need to look at those who don't believe as ourselves without Grace. I disagree with Judaism but I'm going to treat the people with Christian Charity ergo respectfully. There's always going to be jokes against other ethnic/religious groups in any community, but some of the anti-semetic stuff tends to have a nasty edge which isn't calibrated to reality.





Bruce said...

You’re referring to sexual morality which I agree is huge – I believe our lady, in a vision to one of the saints, said that sexual sins send more people to hell than any other. In any event, they figure prominently in post-modernism. The libidinous appetite is surely the downfall of so many and a chief reason for rejecting God.

White Evangelicals are pushing back against the evil the government has recently legalized (homomatrimony) or is trying to keep legal (abortion). The “hot button” issues in the news.

I’m just not impressed with their morals. They believe in contraception (intrinsically evil) and sodomizing your wife. A VERY conservative (he does genuine good work) Lutheran blogger recently argued in the comments that anally sodomizing your wife is within the bounds of Christian liberty since the Bible doesn’t say you can’t do this. The elderly atheist John Derbyshire describes how oral sodomy was almost non-existent in the very non-devout, residually Christian society of his childhood: https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Culture/fellatio.html

Now sodomizing your wife is Biblical and your $100K+ Evangelical bulwark believes in it almost universally. Our residually Christian society a few generations ago didn’t have laws against forcing your wife to carry out her duties of the conjugal act but you could be prosecuted for sodomizing her.

Let’s turn to contraception. None of the these white Evangelicals believe contraception is intrinsically evil. A few of them recognize a large family is a blessing but don’t judge others. Even the morally libertine heretic Martin Luther recognized that contraceptive coitus is treating your wife like a prostitute. I’m happy that they are against abortion but the contraceptive mentality is the same even if it’s less instinctively “icky.”

So I guess I’m just not impressed with them. If they’re the best we have in significant numbers, well then bless them and I wish them well. There’s a tiny number of tradish Catholics – they are doing things the right way but they are a drop in the ocean and I doubt that the powers that be will leave them alone to practice their faith. Notice the FBI recently targeted Latin Mass Catholics. Not Evangelicals, not Eastern Orthodox, not Orthodox Jews, etc.

We’re back to pagan Rome.

Bruce said...

I’ve attended two traditional parishes that are probably 95% white and have never met a racialist. I went to one Sunday and discovered (with joy) that two of my coworkers, a Chinese man and a dark-skinned Latino attend mass there and I also met a new friend from Columbia.

It’s reasonable for people to take the position that nations should exist and demographics matter but I’ve seen young whites in the parishes married to Latinos, couples who have adopted African babies, etc. An African composer of sacred liturgical music was invited to our Latin Mass parish over the summer and was enthusiastically received.

Elite Jews have punched way above their numerical weight in getting us to where we are – that’s just reality not anti-semitism. That fact doesn’t hamper my desire and obligation to treat the Jewish anesthesiologist convert to my parish with caritas. He crucified Christ but so did I. We both re-crucify Christ when we sin. When I watch Mel Gibson’s movie my heart says “I did that” and I weep. My heart doesn’t say that Hershel did that.

WASPs (5/8 of my ancestry) punched way above their weight too but no one is going to call me anti-WASP for saying that.

Bruce said...

I guess this relates to the anti-semitism discussion. What you describe statistically isn’t the ruling class (I would be in this ruling class since I barely exceed $100K). It’s a pretty large socio-economic group based on that threshold (not particularly elite) from which the very small ruling class is drawn. Similarly, “elite Jews” are drawn from the “American Jews” class. Similarly, the bishops are drawn from the larger pool of priests who are drawn from the even larger pool of “Catholic laity.”

I suppose your point is that our rulers are drawn from this pool and will inevitably have these beliefs. I’m not sure the prole beliefs are much better. Statisically we’re all pretty rotten. This can be seen in prole culture. I suppose the $100K+ pool is better at the bourgeois thing but the bourgeois thing is now comfortable with homomatrimony, contraception, abortion, martial sodomy, ….. and so is the prole-thing.

The priests are bad because the laity is bad and the priests are drawn from the laity. The bishops are bad because the priests are bad….. etc.

The Social Pathologist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Social Pathologist said...

@Bruce

What you describe statistically isn’t the ruling class

Modern society is a co-operative effort and many people don't truly understand how decisions are implemented in it. It's not some small cabal that's forcing their decisions onto a majority which are unwilling participants, rather it's a consensus decision that runs all the way down the hierarchy.

What's been fascinating for me to see is the lack of push-back by ordinary "low level" people who I expected would take a stand on some of these morally controversial issues.Teachers, local journalists, senior managers etc. Lots of people in positions of local power aren't "elite" and yet they affect our lives profoundly on a daily basis. Remember, it's teachers school principals that are enthusiastically pushing "Drag Queen Story Hour", and they're not being paid by Soros for their efforts. Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, for example, aren't on the Forbes list of Billionaires.

The Trump presidency was a great example of how government bureaucracy, i.e. those earning good but not fantastic money, can all unite to stymie the decision from the "top". What's been so depressing is seeing how many Christians have cheered on the moral rot and how few voices have pushed back in opposition. The point is that a lot of the result is a consequence of middle management being on board with the program.

One of my favourite books is Sebastian Haffner's, Defying Hitler. He clearly shows that it was the subservience of the senior middle and lower upper class that enabled the institutional capture by Nazism. This isn't an "elite" issue, it's a people issue. Sure the elites support and foster these movements but they couldn't thrive if it were a simple "top down" initiative.

I don't want to delve into the subject of sexual ethics since I think it is a diversion to the main point I wish to make. My own studies into the collapse of Catholicism have given me a chance to reappraise Protestantism. I am a Catholic because I feel that the Church is "righter" than Protestantism when it comes to the apprehension of Caritas but that is not to say that Protestantism is without merit. The lack of explicit condemnation in the Bible is not a licence to do what you want, but neither is a hyperpapacy which--by way of theological fashion--can choose by edict to erase all positive references to capital punishment. "Inadmissible" is a weasel word that dishonours scripture.

Anonymous said...

good

Anonymous said...

>I’ve attended two traditional parishes that are probably 95% white and have never met a racialist. I went to one Sunday and discovered (with joy) that two of my coworkers, a Chinese man and a dark-skinned Latino attend mass there and I also met a new friend from Columbia.

Racial aliens who disrupt the social fabric and are autistic by nature (Chinese) or double digit IQ (Hispanics). You are just as much a part of the rainbow gay sex liberalization of Christianity as anyone else. Race mixing erases specialized distinctions which are characteristic of high culture and replaces them with lower energy, degenerated forms. Embarrassing behavior, Bruce.