Religious intolerance in the GOP

WitoldPilecki said:
According to that chart 73% of benefits go towards the elderly & disabled.

While, I agree with going against abusers of the benefits, particularly welfare queens, and recent immigrants.

It's still a rather small margin of those which receive benefits.
Click to expand...

Welfare (TANF), for example, is not an entitlement and would not be shown in your chart. Newer (legal) immigrants are often low-income and more likely to get benefits than those who have been here longer or citizens.

In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.

Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).

Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).

New immigrants must be here a certain period of time before they are eligible although that requirement is waived for some (Cubans).

"Survey of Income and Program Participation", U.S. Census Bureau, last revised February 29, 2016.
 
Flash said:
Welfare (TANF), for example, is not an entitlement and would not be shown in your chart. Newer (legal) immigrants are often low-income and more likely to get benefits than those who have been here longer or citizens.

In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.

Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).

Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).

New immigrants must be here a certain period of time before they are eligible although that requirement is waived for some (Cubans).

"Survey of Income and Program Participation", U.S. Census Bureau, last revised February 29, 2016.
Click to expand...

We shouldn't even have immigrants in mass, much less give them welfare.

But, you can blame the Capitalists, they want the immigrants here for cheap labor.

The Capitalists want them here for immediate profit, and want to pass on the expenses of immigration to the taxpayer.
 
Flash said:
The original OP suggests Republicans are intolerant of certain religions because there are few elected Republican members of Congress of those religions.

That must also mean Democrats are intolerant of those religions which have few members of Congress elected as Democrats from those religions; for example, evangelicals.
Click to expand...

Evangelicals are partly defined by their desire to erase the line between church and state. So of course they're going to be Republican. Their ideology is Republican in nature.
Now compare that to Muslims. Their religion isn't any more Democrat in nature than Christianity. The reason they become Democrats anyway is because Republicans hate them.

Also, I think it is accurate to say Democrats are more likely than Republicans to be intolerant of religion in general, especially Christianity.
Click to expand...

Any evidence of this?

I'd agree that Democrats are more likely to oppose special privileges for Christianity, like the Republicans want, but that's not intolerance. That's just wanting to have a secular country where all religions are treated the same in public policy.
 
Cypress said:
That is an observation, not an explanation.
I am looking for inductive or deductive reasoning leading to a deeper understanding of cause-effect relationships.

We have made the observations that the GOP is repulsive to the overwhelming majority of:

Recent immigrants
Blacks
Jewish Americans
Muslim Americans
Hindu Americans
Buddhist Americans
Hispanic Americans

But the question is why?
Click to expand...

Not sure. I suppose it is for the same reason that most Protestants, 37% of Catholics and 25% of Jews find the Democratic party repulsive.

They don't like their policies (especially immigration) or values, social group identification, historical background (Cubans and Nicaraguans are more Republican than other Hispanics).

Changing demographic conditions also affect voting patterns:

“We find that an increase in low-skilled immigrants affects the vote of U.S. counties in different ways,” the authors write in a new paper, “but in general tends to push voters towards the Republican Party. Non-urban, low-skill counties with high local public spending strongly increased their Republican vote share in response to low-skilled immigration.” The authors associate the GOP with more-restrictive immigration policies, saying that’s what it usually championed in the 20 years they consider."

"The authors also found the opposite effect: an influx of software engineers, say, as opposed to agricultural laborers tilts the balance in favor of Democrats. “High-skilled immigration consistently moves the local electorate towards votes for the Democratic Party,” they write, with the effect “particularly strong in areas with large concentrations of low-skilled workers but it is present in all counties.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-immigrants-help-republicans-win-elections-2018-05-14

Because Democrats have 3 Muslims, 3 Hindus, and 2 Buddhists in Congress is a far stretch from saying "We have made the observations that the GOP is repulsive to the overwhelming majority of....."

We have not made that observation at all. When the 2016 election had both candidates with negative opinion ratings a majority of voters obviously found both parties somewhat repulsive with 7 million voting 3rd party.
 
Flash said:
Not sure. I suppose it is for the same reason that most Protestants, 37% of Catholics and 25% of Jews find the Democratic party repulsive.

They don't like their policies (especially immigration) or values, social group identification, historical background (Cubans and Nicaraguans are more Republican than other Hispanics).

Changing demographic conditions also affect voting patterns:

“We find that an increase in low-skilled immigrants affects the vote of U.S. counties in different ways,” the authors write in a new paper, “but in general tends to push voters towards the Republican Party. Non-urban, low-skill counties with high local public spending strongly increased their Republican vote share in response to low-skilled immigration.” The authors associate the GOP with more-restrictive immigration policies, saying that’s what it usually championed in the 20 years they consider."

"The authors also found the opposite effect: an influx of software engineers, say, as opposed to agricultural laborers tilts the balance in favor of Democrats. “High-skilled immigration consistently moves the local electorate towards votes for the Democratic Party,” they write, with the effect “particularly strong in areas with large concentrations of low-skilled workers but it is present in all counties.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-immigrants-help-republicans-win-elections-2018-05-14

Because Democrats have 3 Muslims, 3 Hindus, and 2 Buddhists in Congress is a far stretch from saying "We have made the observations that the GOP is repulsive to the overwhelming majority of....."

We have not made that observation at all. When the 2016 election had both candidates with negative opinion ratings a majority of voters obviously found both parties somewhat repulsive with 7 million voting 3rd party.
Click to expand...

The USA has always been a Capitalist country which valued immigrant labor, and imports.

First it was English & Welsh settlers etc. etc.

Then it was Black slaves.

Then it was Scots & Scots-Irish. etc. etc.

Then it was Germans, and Irish Catholics. etc. etc.

Then it was Italians, Poles & Jews etc. etc.

Then it was Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans etc. etc.

Now it is Chinese, Guatemalans, Salvadorians etc. etc.
 
WitoldPilecki said:
White could be considered interchangeable with European.

Of course, some Europeans are borderline European genetically to begin with, like Southern Italians, Greeks, and Ashkenazi Jews."

Actually, apparently Southern Italians are genetically more like Saudi Arabians, than like Germans.

So, it's probably more true that these groups aren't really particularly European, despite being technically within the borders of Europe.
Click to expand...

For the most part, white could be interchangeable with European, though there are some peoples who aren't European that I would still consider white, such as Armenians and Syrians.

There are some Greeks and Southern Italians who are mixed and shouldn't be considered white, but it's definitely not all of them. And the same goes for Syrians. This is why whiteness should be defined on an individual basis.
 
StoneByStone said:
For the most part, white could be interchangeable with European, though there are some peoples who aren't European that I would still consider white, such as Armenians and Syrians.

There are some Greeks and Southern Italians who are mixed and shouldn't be considered white, but it's definitely not all of them. And the same goes for Syrians. This is why whiteness should be defined on an individual basis.
Click to expand...

Armenians are 75 - 80% Near-Eastern by genes. LOL

Syrians are also 75% - 80% Near Eastern by genes.

Ashkenazis are 65 - 75% Near Eastern by genes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...082kxaBF5ePr4__bAK05VQRFw/edit#gid=1681484272
 
WitoldPilecki said:
Armenians are 75 - 80% Near-Eastern by genes. LOL

Syrians are also 75% - 80% Near Eastern by genes.

Ashkenazis are 65 - 75% Near Eastern by genes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...082kxaBF5ePr4__bAK05VQRFw/edit#gid=1681484272
Click to expand...

Originally, most of the Near East was white. The reason so many of them are mixed today is because of African and Asian traders who settled in the region.
If you google "Armenians" or "Syrians" you'll see that most of them look as white as the average European.
 
StoneByStone said:
Evangelicals are partly defined by their desire to erase the line between church and state. So of course they're going to be Republican. Their ideology is Republican in nature.
Now compare that to Muslims. Their religion isn't any more Democrat in nature than Christianity. The reason they become Democrats anyway is because Republicans hate them.

Any evidence of this?

I'd agree that Democrats are more likely to oppose special privileges for Christianity, like the Republicans want, but that's not intolerance. That's just wanting to have a secular country where all religions are treated the same in public policy.
Click to expand...

The evidence is that the percentage of those who identify as agnostics, atheists, no religion, or don't know are much more likely to identify as Democrats. That does not necessarily mean they are hostile toward religion, but many are. Although I know it is not representative, I have seen many JPP liberals very hostile to religion and few Republicans.

Your explanation of why Muslims hate Republicans makes my point which is just that Democrats are also intolerant toward religion. You are just giving a reason for that intolerance. Many Americans, more Republicans, are intolerant of Muslims because they think they are terrorists who want to kill infidels. Something is not any less intolerant because there is a reason for it whether legitimate or not.

If you think Republicans want special privileges for Christianity that makes you intolerant of that religious view because you do not accept it. That is no different than Republicans who think Muslims are a danger--that is not aimed at their religious views but how they might act on those views. Both are intolerant of (certain) religious views of the other.

I don't think you are arguing both are not intolerant, but that Democratic intolerance is more justifiable.
 
StoneByStone said:
Originally, most of the Near East was white. The reason so many of them are mixed today is because of African and Asian traders who settled in the region.
If you google "Armenians" or "Syrians" you'll see that most of them look as white as the average European.
Click to expand...

There's a picture of Armenian gangsters here.

Not exactly very White looking.

They look like half Mexican, half Syrian.

http://gangstersinc.ning.com/profiles/blogs/profile-armenian-power-leader-mher-darbinyan

Although, Armenians are among the smartest of the non-Whites, well unless you include Ashkenazi Jews as non-Whites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Armenian_scientists
 
WitoldPilecki said:
The USA has always been a Capitalist country which valued immigrant labor, and imports.

First it was English & Welsh settlers etc. etc.

Then it was Black slaves.

Then it was Scots & Scots-Irish. etc. etc.

Then it was Germans, and Irish Catholics. etc. etc.

Then it was Italians, Poles & Jews etc. etc.

Then it was Puerto Ricans, and Mexicans etc. etc.

Now it is Chinese, Guatemalans, Salvadorians etc. etc.
Click to expand...

But there has always been conflict between (usually the latest to arrive) immigrants and those who have been here longer. Groups like Chinese could not become citizens. They were only valued if they kept their place.
 
Flash said:
But there has always been conflict between (usually the latest to arrive) immigrants and those who have been here longer. Groups like Chinese could not become citizens. They were only valued if they kept their place.
Click to expand...

I agree, multiculturalism (Balkanization) always leads to conflict, rather than stopping prejudices, it is the cause of prejudices.

Just kind of proves the Liberal minded are morons.
 
WitoldPilecki said:
There's a picture of Armenian gangsters here.

Not exactly very White looking.

They look like half Mexican, half Syrian.

http://gangstersinc.ning.com/profiles/blogs/profile-armenian-power-leader-mher-darbinyan

Although, Armenians are among the smartest of the non-Whites, well unless you include Ashkenazi Jews as non-Whites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Armenian_scientists
Click to expand...

Although, I disagree with Ignacy Lukasiewicz being just Armenian, I suspect he was mostly Polish, and just had minor Armenian descendants.

For one, other articles say he was from Noble families which are always Polish, and that he was Catholic instead of belonging to Armenian Apostolic Church.
Not typical to Polish Armenians.

Of course Ignacy Lukasiewicz was among the best inventors of the 19th century, he founded Kerosene lamps, and founded the modern Oil industry.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/lukasiewicz-ignacy

Ignacy Lukasiewicz was born on March 8, 1822, in the small town of Zaduszniki, Poland. He was the youngest of seven children. His parents, Josef and Apolonia Lukasiewicz, were landowners whose fortunes had declined; his father belonged to a noble family and had taken part in a rebellion against Russian rule led by Thaddeus Kosciusko in 1794. After that he moved to the Galicia region in southern Poland and leased a large farm where Ignacy spent the first part of his childhood. In 1830 the family moved to Rzeszow, where they purchased an apartment building and rented out rooms. Despite their aristocratic background, they never had money to spare.

Lack of money hampered Lukasiewicz's education, but he nevertheless had a zest for learning and pursued it as rigorously as he could whenever he had the chance. He was enrolled in a Catholic grammar school in 1832, gaining a good grounding in Latin and German,
 
Flash said:
The evidence is that the percentage of those who identify as agnostics, atheists, no religion, or don't know are much more likely to identify as Democrats. That does not necessarily mean they are hostile toward religion, but many are. Although I know it is not representative, I have seen many JPP liberals very hostile to religion and few Republicans.
Click to expand...

You do realize that's a terrible argument, right?

See, the talking-point that Democrats/Liberals/Leftists hate Christianity or Christians is repeated so often that people just take it as a common fact. Then you actually ask people for evidence of this and they have none.

Your explanation of why Muslims hate Republicans makes my point which is just that Democrats are also intolerant toward religion. You are just giving a reason for that intolerance. Many Americans, more Republicans, are intolerant of Muslims because they think they are terrorists who want to kill infidels. Something is not any less intolerant because there is a reason for it whether legitimate or not.
Click to expand...

I didn't say Muslims hate Republicans. I said Muslims don't want to be around Republicans because Republicans hate Muslims. Would you want to join a club full of people who hate you? This would be like saying black people hate the KKK.

If you think Republicans want special privileges for Christianity that makes you intolerant of that religious view because you do not accept it. That is no different than Republicans who think Muslims are a danger--that is not aimed at their religious views but how they might act on those views. Both are intolerant of (certain) religious views of the other.
Click to expand...

But we're not talking about the views, we're talking about the people. If a Muslim believed that America should be a secular country, they'd be welcomed in the Democratic Party. However, a Muslim would never be welcomed in the Republican Party simply because of their religion.
Saying this is the same if the False Equivalence fallacy.
 
WitoldPilecki said:
There's a picture of Armenian gangsters here.

Not exactly very White looking.

They look like half Mexican, half Syrian.

http://gangstersinc.ning.com/profiles/blogs/profile-armenian-power-leader-mher-darbinyan

Although, Armenians are among the smartest of the non-Whites, well unless you include Ashkenazi Jews as non-Whites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Armenian_scientists
Click to expand...

Some Armenians are white, some aren't. Same goes for Southern Europeans.

armenia-revolution-rally-flag-rtr-img.jpg
 
StoneByStone said:
You do realize that's a terrible argument, right?

See, the talking-point that Democrats/Liberals/Leftists hate Christianity or Christians is repeated so often that people just take it as a common fact. Then you actually ask people for evidence of this and they have none.
Click to expand...

I did not make that argument. I did not say liberals hate Christianity. I don't believe the "War on Christianity" or Christmas pitch. I said atheists, for example, are more likely to be hostile toward religion (in general) and also more likely to be Democrats.

StoneByStone said:
I didn't say Muslims hate Republicans. I said Muslims don't want to be around Republicans because Republicans hate Muslims. Would you want to join a club full of people who hate you? This would be like saying black people hate the KKK.
Click to expand...

I think blacks could generally be described as being intolerant of the KKK. If I don't want to be in a club with you I am intolerant of you or your views.

StoneByStone said:
But we're not talking about the views, we're talking about the people. If a Muslim believed that America should be a secular country, they'd be welcomed in the Democratic Party. However, a Muslim would never be welcomed in the Republican Party simply because of their religion. Saying this is the same if the False Equivalence fallacy.
Click to expand...

The original argument is that Republicans are religiously intolerant because there are no Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fewer Jews elected to Congress as Republicans. That is talking about their views, not the people.

I disagree that a person who prefers a secular country would be unwelcome in the party because I have heard no Republican officials who advocate anything less. Republicans get all upset over court decisions about placing a copy of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, but generally favor separation of church and state, especially Baptists.

In Texas a Muslim surgeon was chosen as vice-chair of the Tarrant County Republican Party. About 13% of Muslims identify as Republicans (up from 11% in 2007). Claiming "Republicans hate Muslims" is about the same as saying Democrats hate Christianity. Dislike is higher among Trump supporters than Republicans in general who give Muslims a 48.6% score on the "feeling thermometer."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top