Tuesday, August 31, 2021


 Most truly religious people voted for “Protestant” Donald Trump, including practicing Catholics:

Copied from the Deacon’s Bench:


From Pew: 

Similar to past elections, religion played an important role in the 2020 U.S. presidential contest: Republican candidate Donald Trump continued to garner strong support from White evangelical Protestants, while Black Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated backed the Democratic candidate and eventual winner, President Joe Biden.

But religious identity alone does not tell the whole story. Among White Americans, worship service attendance remains highly correlated with presidential vote choice, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of 2020 validated voters.

As in previous years, voters who frequently go to religious services – defined as those who attend at least monthly – were more likely to vote for the Republican candidate in the most recent presidential election, while less frequent attenders were more likely to back the Democrat.

Overall, 59% of voters who frequently attend religious services cast their ballot for Trump, while 40% chose Biden. Among those who attend services a few times a year or less, the pattern was almost exactly reversed: 58% picked Biden, while 40% voted for Trump.


However, these patterns vary by race. Frequent religious service attenders’ preference for Trump was apparent among White voters but largely absent among Black voters. (Due to limitations in sample size, results among Hispanic and Asian Americans could not be analyzed separately.)

About seven-in-ten White, non-Hispanic Americans who attend religious services at least monthly (71%) voted for Trump, while roughly a quarter (27%) voted for Biden. Among White Americans who attend religious services a few times a year or less, far fewer voted for Trump (46%), while around half (52%) voted for Biden.

Among Black, non-Hispanic adults in the U.S., by comparison, there is no such link between attendance and vote choice. Nine-in-ten Black Americans who attend religious services monthly or more voted for Biden in 2020, as did a similar share of Black voters who attend services less often (94%). Just 10% of Black frequent attenders and 5% of Black infrequent attenders voted for Trump.

And there’s this:

About six-in-ten White Catholics who attend Mass monthly or more often (63%) supported Trump in the 2020 election, while 36% supported Biden. Less frequent Mass attenders expressed less support for Trump (53%) and more support for Biden (47%)…

… Biden, meanwhile, gained some ground among White Catholics, garnering 42% of that vote, or 11 points more than Clinton did in 2016.

Read it all. 


TJM said...

Awe, this must give Father K the sads. People voting their religious beliefs. But cheer up Father K, here is a member of your Party y you can be proud of:

A high school teacher in Sacramento California has been caught bragging about indoctrinating his students with communist propaganda so they can become “revolutionaries” who are willing to commit their lives to ANTIFA’s anti-American ideology.

Gabriel Gipe, the AP government teacher at Inderkum High School, was exposed by Project Veritas in another one of their brilliant undercover operations. One of their reporters met with Gipe at a restaurant where he happily boasted about his radical beliefs and his membership within the local Sacramento chapter of Antifa.

“You need to retrain the way people think. Consistently focusing on education and a change of cultural propaganda, it’s like we have to hit both fronts. We have to convince people that this [Socialism] is what we actually need.”

Gipe explains how students in his class are offered extra credit for going out and participating with the black-bloc mob as they terrorize the community. He teaches them that activism is “so much more than sending a tweet” and pressures them to get “involved.”

Jerome Merwick said...

Father, is there some reason that you just NEED to keep kicking sand in Fr. K's face?

TJM said...


You are new here right? Ever here of Bee?

TJM said...

Joe Biden's statement today on Texas new "Heartbeat" law confirms that these faithful Catholics voted wisely for Trump and not Biden:

Biden hid from the American people for 8 hours after 13 US service members were killed by a suicide blast in Kabul.

But he immediately released a statement on Texas’ new abortion bill.

That’s all you need to know about Joe Biden’s priorities.

“This extreme Texas law blatantly violates the constitutional right established under Roe v. Wade and upheld as precedent for nearly half a century,” Biden said in a statement on Tuesday.

TJM said...

Waiting for our leftist posters to explain how the Texas Law violates “social justice” and how Biden is the swellest Catholic

Mark said...

Two comments on TJM’s posts in this thread:

First, there are no “leftist” posters on this Blog. TJM’s use of the term “leftist” is not rational and objective but irrational and subjective. Its only purpose is to serve as an emotive label pinned to anyone who makes a comment TJM disagrees with.

Second, and related, how do I know that my first comment is accurate? Because anyone attempting to challenge a statement by TJM by engaging in objective rational discussion aimed at discovering facts or truth or at advancing our understanding of a matter, is dismissed by him as “leftist,” typically coupled with some other ad hominem remark.

If I thought that TJM was really interested in a rational discussion about abortion (or indeed any other topic), I might respond to Biden’s statement on the Texas abortion law, distinguish it from his response to the suicide bombing in Kabul, and seek to engage on fundamental jurisprudential questions of political and constitutional theory such as the proper separation of powers, democratic legitimacy, individual rights, the limits of law, civil disobedience, virtue in politics including practical wisdom, and so on, as well as related practical questions about effective strategies for eliminating abortion and responding to terrorist attacks, and the role of faith in all of these questions. But really, what’s the point? It would only encourage him.

TJM said...


LOL. Quit grandstanding and comment on Biden’s response. I should preen like you and suggest I should not have a discussion with someone who refers to President Trump as “Darth Trump” as you did. That moniker is more applicable to Obama who attacked Libya resulting in the unleashing Muslim hordes in Europe and the US with all of the destabilization that rash action caused. Of course your crowd did not pay a price for that

TJM said...


Not to be outdone by Catholic Biden, now Kamala Harris has weighed in to say the new Texas Law would block “reproductive care” to women of Color, a very deceptive term to apply to killing the unborn of people of Color. Stick with this bunch because they apparently represent your “values.”

TJM said...

This is for corrupt Catholics, both clerical and lay, who vote for the Democratic Party. If this does not warrant excommunication, nothing does:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Thursday that the House will vote to “enshrine into law reproductive health care for all women across America” following the Supreme Court’s refusal to block a Texas law that prohibits abortion after a heartbeat can be detected."

What in God's name is "reproductive" about killing your unborn child?

Mark said...


Please look up the definition of grandstanding and then look in the mirror.
Please also get your facts straight (part of our communication problem is that you do not seem very interested in facts). I did not refer to Darth Trump. I referred to Emperor Trump and Darth Vader Stephen Miller (also note: these are public figures, not fellow Bloggers, an important distinction). The imagery was included in the following post on another thread:

"Notice how, unlike the so-called “leftists” TJM refers to, who aren’t any such thing of course and who are quite willing to acknowledge failings on the part of Biden and other Democrats, TJM is quite unwilling to acknowledge any failing on the part of Trump and the Republicans, legion though these failings are. For example, despite repeated entreaties and reminders on the “Biden seduced” thread, he continues to refuse to acknowledge the fact that Emperor Trump and Darth Vader Stephen Miller basically gutted the SIV system for Afghans, for which they were excoriated by veteran Matt Zeller (who also quite rightly criticized the Biden Administration). TJM is in no position to say that someone else cannot handle the truth."

Since when have we ever had an actual “discussion”? You do not seem very interested in “discussion,” just in scoring political points with your audience here as you mete out your invective on imagined “leftists” or “your crowd.”

As Catholics we should not only be committed to facts and truth but to reason. Let me know when you are willing to share these commitments and then we can have a “discussion.”

Mark said...

For everyone else (and for TJM if he is willing to stop the juvenile name calling of fellow Bloggers and have a sensible conversation):

If I understand correctly, the U.S. Supreme Court never reached the merits of the case on their emergency “shadow docket.” The case was decided on a procedural technicality. But they did acknowledge that the Texas law raised serious issues of constitutionality. We will have to see whether the courts are able to review these issues on the merits despite the Texas legislators’ clever (or is that cunning?) attempt to immunize the law from (or is that evade?) judicial review for compliance with the Constitution.

I wish Biden had said something like:

“As a Catholic, I personally believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is always an intrinsic evil. But as President I am sworn to uphold the Constitution and consider that the attempt by the Texas legislature (and any other state that follows their lead) to evade it must be addressed. Therefore, I support all attempts for effective judicial review of this law or other appropriate measures to support the constitutional rights of women under Roe v. Wade. Acting in my role as president in this way causes me great anguish because my deeply held views as a Catholic conflict with my duties as President.

“Both personally and as President I would like to see a situation where no woman ever had to consider resorting to an abortion. To this end, I call on all citizens to engage with one another in one-on-one or small group conversations across this land to respectfully explore their differences and deeply held values and beliefs with a non-judgmental attitude, trying to understand one another and one another’s reasons for these differing positions, values, and beliefs. When we have stopped demonizing each another and have once again come to know one other as human beings and to know one another's hopes, dreams, fears, joys, and pain in this way, then let us together see what ways there may be for us to bring the number of abortions as close to zero as we can, for I do not believe that anyone is “pro-abortion” and that everyone considers that the choice to have an abortion is a tragic choice.”

Unfortunately, he did not say that. Sadly, I suspect he is too much driven by political (as opposed to constitutional or moral) considerations. Which means it is up to us to take the initiative. There are in fact several such initiatives underway aimed at encouraging grassroots conversation among citizens on this and other controversial matters, which is a hopeful sign.

This may help advance such conversations:

Mark said...

In contrast to the outrage on media outlets such as MSNBC, the following Washington Post piece sheds some light, as opposed to heat, on the legal reasoning behind the SCOTUS decision:

TJM said...


Would you have a president say the same about Plessy v Ferguson? Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said Roe v Wade was a mistake. Epic failure on your part.

I think it is childish to refer to a president as Darth Trump when if you choose to use such appellations, apply them properly, to someone like your god, Obama, who unleased the Libya disaster.

TJM said...


Washington Post? LOL, ya they are a real "objective" news source. Is that the kind of mush you fill your mind with? I find better reporting on what is going on in the US from British newspapers since they do not feel it is their mission to protect Biden

Mark said...


You are right. The WAPO article must be mush—it supported the SCOTUS decision, a fact you might have discovered if you had read it instead of engaging in your usual “labeling” tactic.

But, as I said before, facts are not your strong suit. For example, I never referred to Darth Trump.

I hope you are more careful in your legal work. However, I am unsure about that as you misunderstand and misapply RBG’s objections to Roe v. Wade:

“Ginsburg said that she believed it would have been easier for the public to understand why the Constitution protected abortion rights if it the matter had been framed as one of equal protection rather than privacy. And in fact, there was a specific case she had in mind as one that should have driven the national conversation, instead of letting Roe carry that weight.”

Mark said...


To be sufficiently careful myself, I need to clarify my previous comment. If you invoked Ginsburg to support the narrow point that my hypothetical Biden speech should not have referred to “the constitutional rights of women under Roe v. Wade” because the original reasoning supporting the decision is questionable, you might have invoked her appropriately.

This said, however, there is an argument that Roe has since been reinforced by decades of precedent. Related, there may be other bases for grounding the legal right to an abortion in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the hypothetical speech might be easily amended, consistent with Ginsburg’s views, by eliminating “under Roe v. Wade” to refer more broadly to “the constitutional rights of women to an abortion” or “the rights of women to an abortion under the Constitution.”

Mark said...

Some further thoughts:

Even if SCOTUS does overrule Roe v. Wade, isn’t it very likely to be a pyrrhic victory, both legally and politically, for those of us who seek to reduce or even eliminate abortion—legally, because legal challenges to abortion restrictions enacted by state legislatures will continue to be mounted both under state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution, and politically because the Democrats will doubtless milk the “wedge issue” they would now have been handed for all it is worth just as the Republicans have milked it for all it was worth as long as Roe remained the law?

If so, don’t we need to look to other, more effective strategies—those that seek to persuade and win over hearts and minds rather than those that seek to coerce through the force of law?

If vaccine and mask mandates cause agitation in the name of freedom from government “tyranny,” despite the minimal intrusion on freedom they represent, one can only imagine what will happen when state legislatures try to take away women’s now decades’ old rights to seek a legal abortion. It promises to be the female equivalent to gun control—and more. And it won’t be only women who vote Democrat who get agitated! In other words, shouldn’t we be careful what we wish for; we just might get it?

None of this, however, changes the morality of the matter.