Vox has a piece up, Democrats should start accepting pro-life liberals like me. It has this section:
I am the only Christian on a great many of my friends’ Facebook feeds, and I am also the only Democrat on a great many other Facebook feeds. What I see is a need to stop taunting pro-life people. I believe there are politicians who are afraid of the people uniting on these issues because if we did, we could make radical progressive change.
This is not really true, though the author thinks it is true. I was pretty sure that the “pro-life liberal” category is actually bigger than the author thinks because most pro-life liberals keep their mouths shut. This has a converse. Many conservatives, especially intellectuals, are atheists, but keep their mouths shut in public out of ‘respect’ for the major viewpoint.
But I wanted to quantitatively measure the extend of pro-life sentiment among liberals. So I looked to the General Social Survey. The variable ABANY has large sample sizes. It asks:
Please tell me whether or not you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if: g. The woman wants it for any reason?
If you answer “yes” you are clearly pro-choice. If you say “no,” you may be pro-life. This is not the best question for all purposes, but it is good for year to year comparisons, as well as comparing different demographics.
I was particularly curious about changes among non-Hispanic whites stratified by ideology; liberal, moderate, and conservative. What is interesting is that white liberals have become more unapologetically pro-choice as a demographic over the past 16 years, while moderates and conservatives has not changed much (non-white liberals have also become more pro-choice, but less overwhelmingly so). But another thing to note is that on the order of one out of five white liberals still dissents from unqualified support for abortion rights. They may not be pro-life, but these are certainly people who have points of agreement with a pro-life position.
Conversely, one out of five whites who think that the “The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word” say that they are liberal in 2016. Like the white liberals with reservations about a maximal pro-choice position, they are no doubt silent on the Facebook feeds because they worry about social ostracism or being attacked.
“Many conservatives, especially intellectuals, are atheists, but keep their mouths shut in public out of ‘respect’ for the major viewpoint”
I suspect that a fair number of them have feelings of “well, I can’t personally believe, but churches do a lot of good work, and provide community, and it seems useful for those people.” In other words, for many the respect is not worthy of sneer quotes. Hard to think there’s an analogous view for abortion apostates.
The recent book Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartles has, inter alia, some more information about how abortion views have changed over time. (Unsurprisingly, men whether Democrats or Republicans have been more likely to shift views to match their party, as other issues are more salient to them.)
That is my sense as well regarding many atheist conservatives, something along the lines of Friedrich Hayek’s stance: “I am not personally religious, but I respect religion.”
I believe most religious conservatives accept this, as they seek respect for their theistic views rather than demand conformity. This is certainly my view, speaking as a highly religious conservative.
In that regard, I think the dynamic for pro-life leftists is different, because non-conformity on this matter often invites disbelief and, eventually, attacks from their ideological teammates
I believe most religious conservatives accept this, as they seek respect for their theistic views rather than demand conformity. This is certainly my view, speaking as a highly religious conservative.
in general true, especially in elite circles. OTOH, a subset of conservatives did assert that christian faith necessarily followed from conservatism and vice versa. seemed ludicrous to me, but this was a view common in the late 2000s in some quarters (i encountered it when i started secular right blog).
that view seems to be mostly gone now in 2017, but i think that’s a function of increased secularity in society.
Heh, Catholic conservatives have always kept company with “virtuous pagans” unlike, say, evangelical Protestant conservatives. After all, we “worship that pagan, Aristotle” as one Protestant conservative leader once said of Catholics.
yeah, i think most of the critiques came from a certain type of evangelical protestant. it was a weird mix of americanism, low church protestantism, and implicit whiteness i think.
2 Corinthians 6:17
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
In European conservatism, there was a subtradition of “I am not Christian, but I am Catholic” (Charles Maurras, I think) – meaning something like “I don’t believe in God nor in the Bible, but I think we need an organized and established Church to avoid the collapse of civilization”. Perhaps this point of view is difficult to transpose to a Protestant culture (Protestantism, with its perpetual fissions about the correct interpretation of the Bible, is probably less attractive for someone who is nor personally religious but likes the institution of the church).
That’s funny. I like it. It has style.
“I wish to reject Christianity, but I want to reject an orthodox and regimented one.”
@iffen
That’s wildly out of context. The verse preceding clarifies the statement:
2 Corinthians 6:16-17
“16 What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people. 17 Therefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”
From Wiki:
Protestant Reformation
16th-century iconoclasm in the Protestant Reformation. Relief statues in St. Stevenskerk in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, were attacked and defaced in the Beeldenstorm.
Looting of the Churches of Lyon by the Calvinists in 1562 by Antoine Caron.
Destruction of religious images in Zurich, 1524
Some of the Protestant reformers, in particular Andreas Karlstadt, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin, encouraged the removal of religious images by invoking the Decalogue’s prohibition of idolatry and the manufacture of graven (sculpted) images of God. As a result, individuals attacked statues and images. However, in most cases, civil authorities removed images in an orderly manner in the newly reformed Protestant cities and territories of Europe.
Significant iconoclastic riots took place in Zurich (in 1523), Copenhagen (1530), Münster (1534), Geneva (1535), Augsburg (1537), Scotland (1559), Rouen (1560) and Saintes and La Rochelle (1562).[12] In 1549, radical Protestant preachers in London incited a mob to destroy many of the interior decorations in Old St Paul’s Cathedral.[citation needed]
You know that we Catholics aren’t biblical literalists, right? Besides, how would the Corinthians have been converted in the first place without Christians dwelling first amongst the still-pagan Corinthians, eh?