Are people stupid, or am I just too cynical?

[Adora]

OKay, I managed to escape the house for an hour today and actually have conversation with people before teh evil books strangled me again and forced me back into intellectual prostitution. In the middle of lunch said people suddenly started discussing the election results on both the Australian and American continents, and were all like "I was shocked" and "I couldn't believe it".

And all I could think was, "Well, what the fuck did you expect?"

I mean really, I wasn't positive about the outcome of either election before they happened. I didn't think either Latham or Kerry would win, even if they could theoretically. There were just too many things against them, and I don't think they put up good enough fights. I saw a lot of online and offline campaigns by opposition supporters that were more passionate, convincing and better than the actual campaigns put up by the candidates themselves. I was a little shocked myself at the success of the Family First party, but I got over it rather fast when I added up some of its causes.

So yeah, I was surprised by these people's surprise. Are they just stupid and optimistic, or am I just stupid and pessimistic? Has anyone else encountered reactions like this? Did you react this same way yourself? I was honestly rather surprised at some of their passionate disappointments expressed as well, and some of the rather over-dramatic whingings that are still going on with certain US individuals I know (I feel like slapping them and saying, "Okay, so it's shit. What're you going to do about it?"), so yeah. Comments?

[livius drusus]

I was totally stupidified by those damn exit polls on election day. All during the campaign I felt Kerry was half-assing it - except for the debates which I think he rocked - and of course, back in the spring and summer it didn't look to me like he had a chance in hell of beating GWB.

The debates changed that because Bush came across so poorly and Kerry so well (have you noticed his hair? He's got insanely good hair. I don't know how much he pays for those cuts but they're worth every penny.) compared to expectations, so I began to hope. Then the exit polls predicted great things and I let my imagination run free and wild like little Heidi on grandpappy's mountain.

So to answer your question, yeah; I'm fucking stupid as hell.

[Dingfod]

/me raises hand

I actually thought there was a mood for change here. Boy am I stupid.

[Socratoad]

So yeah, I was surprised by these people's surprise. Are they just stupid and optimistic, or am I just stupid and pessimistic? Has anyone else encountered reactions like this? Did you react this same way yourself? I was honestly rather surprised at some of their passionate disappointments expressed as well, and some of the rather over-dramatic whingings that are still going on with certain US individuals I know (I feel like slapping them and saying, "Okay, so it's shit. What're you going to do about it?"), so yeah. Comments?

I know that it is of little consolation, but I have always found it helpful to remember that a pessimist is just an optimist with the facts. Such an attitude helps to cushion the inevitable heartbreaks that come from time to time. Although recent even pretty well has reduced me to basket-case status, but only temporarily.

[Blake]

I think both. I think people are undeniably stupid, and that you may also be a little too cynical.

There was a mood for change, a huge one. I felt with justification since January that Kerry was going to win. Things were just going too badly for Bush, and his numbers were too low. The Democrats turned out amazing numbers of people compared to the last time, compared to any time for the past thirty years. What I counted on not at all was Karl Rove's 4 million evangelicals who didn't turn out last time all turning out this time. In hindsight it's obvious: a chance to burn gay marriage at the stake in 10 states, prompted by Massachusetts' and San Francisco's legitimizing of it earlier this same year, fed by the Republicans' heavy organizing through the churches (as well as ancillary media feeds, like those notorious DVDs). If that issue had not been front and center this year, I think we'd be seeing an unambiguous Kerry win, or at least a replay of the 2000 closeness.

Effort like progressive-minded people put out this year can succeed, so it's well to expect it at least sometimes. *Sometimes* life matches the just, happy endings of stories. On the other hand, there's no question, people are very, very stupid. It seems to me like I've been smarter lately, more perceptive about the state of the world, betting on the right side occasionally, so my utter wrongness about the election results has shaken me quite a bit.

Next time.

[HelenM]

What I counted on not at all was Karl Rove's 4 million evangelicals who didn't turn out last time all turning out this time. In hindsight it's obvious: a chance to burn gay marriage at the stake in 10 states, prompted by Massachusetts' and San Francisco's legitimizing of it earlier this same year, fed by the Republicans' heavy organizing through the churches (as well as ancillary media feeds, like those notorious DVDs). If that issue had not been front and center this year, I think we'd be seeing an unambiguous Kerry win, or at least a replay of the 2000 closeness.

Have you read this thread: The Values-Vote Myth (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=966&page=1&pp=25)?

Helen

[maddog]

I was totally stupidified by those damn exit polls on election day. All during the campaign I felt Kerry was half-assing it - except for the debates which I think he rocked - and of course, back in the spring and summer it didn't look to me like he had a chance in hell of beating GWB.

The debates changed that because Bush came across so poorly and Kerry so well (have you noticed his hair? He's got insanely good hair. I don't know how much he pays for those cuts but they're worth every penny.) compared to expectations, so I began to hope. Then the exit polls predicted great things and I let my imagination run free and wild like little Heidi on grandpappy's mountain.

So to answer your question, yeah; I'm fucking stupid as hell.This is almost exactly my position too -- the only difference being I didn't actually watch the debates (b/c I can't stand to listen to/watch Chimpy McSmirk for more than a micro-millisecond). I'm stupid as hell, too.

So the next question is, how do we take back the debate?

[Dingfod]

Well, there may not be much debate after all the indictments* are handed down after the first of the year.[/optimist]


*Indictments for outing a CIA operative, for the making of the Azzan the American terrorist video, and electronic voting manipulation.


/me needs tinfoil hat (fukken spellcheck)

[viscousmemories]

I don't think I'm stupid and I'm far less cynical these days than I was even last year, but I wasn't surprised that Bush won. I was disappointed because I think the rationale for electing Kerry was stronger and thus I wanted him to win. Plus I knew a lot of people around here had a lot of emotional investment in the outcome. But I wasn't surprised. People are generally afraid of terrorism and worried about maintaining their quality of life, so they chose a "known quantity" over an unknown quantity. I don't think it's a lot more complicated than that.

[BigBlue2]

I don't that people who thought Kerry would win were stupid as such - overly optimistic maybe, but not stupid. Earlier this year, I thought that both Latham and Kerry had a shot at winning their respective elections, the latter more so than the former. However, as the year went on I realised that both Bush and Howard were made of Teflon and nothing that Latham and Kerry could throw at them would stick. Latham had more ground to make up than Kerry, and Howard is a better politician than Bush so Lathams task was always more difficult. A week or two into the Australian election campaign it became pretty obvious that Latham was not going to win, but I thought that he would make up ground on Howard. If that happened I believed that Kerry would win the US election, since both elections were fought on similar issues - the economy and foreign policy mainly. As it happens, Latham got trounced and once that happened I wrote off Kerry's chances as well.

Having said all that, some predictions on IIDB were ridiculous. MrDarwin, for example, predicted a 350-188 win to Kerry, which was just plain silly. Neither candidate was ever going to win 350 EV's, the US electorate was too polarised for that.

[Blake]

I have read the values-vote thread, but thank you, Helen. I agree with the critique up to a point, but I see a number of holes in it and even if it's partly true, I have a hard time believing that gay marriage didn't play a significant role in Republican turnout this time. (One possible hole that I haven't followed up: Do the reports saying that turnout wasn't increased in the 11 gay-marriage-initiative states compared to 2000 take into account migration over the last four years?)

[Cool Hand]

I have read the values-vote thread, but thank you, Helen. I agree with the critique up to a point, but I see a number of holes in it and even if it's partly true, I have a hard time believing that gay marriage didn't play a significant role in Republican turnout this time. (One possible hole that I haven't followed up: Do the reports saying that turnout wasn't increased in the 11 gay-marriage-initiative states compared to 2000 take into account migration over the last four years?)

Hi Blake.

Regarding your possible hole, that's an insightful and creative question. On the other hand, I have to ask in all seriousness, do you really think interstate migration over a measly four-year period among 11 states in the aggregate could make a significant difference? I don't mean theoretically under certain hypothetical circumstances; I mean under the actual circumstances over the last four years.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't heard of any major shift in the population from any state to another in the last four years. The only thing I can think of that is that Nevada keeps growing because of a substantial increase in Las Vegas' population in the last 10 years or so. I don't think that has anything to do with the NYT editorial, however, or that it speaks at all to the possible reasons for voter turnout.

My own speculative theory, based on nothing but my own gut, is that the divisiveness arising from both parties' campaign rhetoric played a big role in the high voter turnout. I think it energized a lot of people to get involved who might not have otherwise. They perceived that this election was more important than other recent ones. The press did its part to make this election sound unduly historic, and that may have played a substantial role in that prediction's becoming self-fulfilling. Also, I think there was a lot of lingering resentment over the 2000 election turmoil, and there was probably heavier than usual turnout on both sides because of it.

I don't know anyone, nor have I heard of anyone, who claims to have been energized to vote over the gay marriage issue. Based on the article and my own anecdotal observations, I suspect it is a myth that it was a primary motivating factor in the election.

Cool Hand

[Roland98]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't heard of any major shift in the population from any state to another in the last four years. The only thing I can think of that is that Nevada keeps growing because of a substantial increase in Las Vegas' population in the last 10 years or so. I don't think that has anything to do with the NYT editorial, however, or that it speaks at all to the possible reasons for voter turnout.

Ohio has had an ongoing "brain drain" for about a decade. I couldn't quickly find any stats on 2002-4, but this article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFQ/is_2003_June/ai_105044551) describes it up till that point.

Since 1998, however, Ohio has suffered a net out-migration, averaging roughly 68,000 a year; surprisingly, Ohio's largest losses have been to other Midwest states. From 1998 to 2002, a total of 434,000 people moved to Ohio from other Midwest states but roughly 547,000 Ohioans moved to other states in the Midwest. The South was the next most popular destination for Ohioans, followed by the West and the Northeast.

The annual exodus of individuals from Ohio appears to have slowed somewhat. In 2002, the most recent year of data, the state's out-migrants totaled 30,000, roughly half the average for the four years ending in 2002. Ohio made relative population gains from the Northeast and the West, but continued to lose large numbers of individuals to other Midwest states.

I can't really imagine it had much to do with voter turnout, however.

I don't know anyone, nor have I heard of anyone, who claims to have been energized to vote over the gay marriage issue. Based on the article and my own anecdotal observations, I suspect it is a myth that it was a primary motivating factor in the election.

I can also only give antecdotal observations, but Issue One in my hometown in Ohio was pretty huge. And on the Sunday before the election, the GOP went to most of the area churches and left leaflets about how "leftists" were going to destroy marriage, ban the Bible and allow abortions up until the day of birth. Of course, I can't really dissect how much of the increased turnout in this state was due to the gay marriage issue alone and distinct from other issues, but among relatives, the "faggot" issue was certainly a motivator. Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3981669.stm) a lot of people list Bush's "moral compass" or some such phrase, but again, 1) I don't think you could really dissect out "gay marriage" from the other "moral" issues in his platform; and 2) they don't necessarily say that motivated them to vote, just that it motivated them to vote for Bush once they were there.

The Catholic vote hasn't been looked at that much either that I've seen. Here (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15598_1.html) they note that Bush put 50,000 "team leaders" in across the country to court the Catholic vote, and that Bush won their vote over Kerry. But again, that only speaks to votes and not motivation to go to the poll.

[Godfather]

I'm probably being naive and simplistic, but I believe reasonably firmly that the ALP could have won until Howard played the Labor=astronomical interest rates card at the last minute. It doesn't matter that not a single serious economist agreed with him, because the general of Australia aren't economists. No one wants their mortgage repayments to go up by hundreds of dollars, and an awful lot of people's the-PM-is-talking-shit-o-meters don't work very well.

As for the US election, there were just too many factors at play to isolate a main one. Everyone has talked about security moms, the Christian right, gay marriage, supporting a 'war-time' president, voting irregularities etc plenty. But there's one issue which I don't think has been discussed much: the apathy of the American left. Maybe apathy isn't the right word. I know it was an unusually heated and partisan campaign, on both sides. But a huge number of Democrats just didn't seem to want to back their candidate. Throughout the whole campaign, I got used to seeing countless forum posts and editorials from American lefties characterising Kerry as the lesser of two evils - endless variations on 'Bush is so bad, I can almost bring myself to just barely manage to stomach voting for Kerry.' What the hell was wrong with Kerry? That's what I want to know. Where did this 'he's better than the other guy, but only just' meme come from? I saw even more of the same thing with Gore, and I couldn't understand it then, either.

[Cool Hand]

Ohio has had an ongoing "brain drain" for about a decade. I couldn't quickly find any stats on 2002-4, but this article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KFQ/is_2003_June/ai_105044551) describes it up till that point.


Thanks, Roland98.


Since 1998, however, Ohio has suffered a net out-migration, averaging roughly 68,000 a year; surprisingly, Ohio's largest losses have been to other Midwest states. From 1998 to 2002, a total of 434,000 people moved to Ohio from other Midwest states but roughly 547,000 Ohioans moved to other states in the Midwest. The South was the next most popular destination for Ohioans, followed by the West and the Northeast.

The annual exodus of individuals from Ohio appears to have slowed somewhat. In 2002, the most recent year of data, the state's out-migrants totaled 30,000, roughly half the average for the four years ending in 2002. Ohio made relative population gains from the Northeast and the West, but continued to lose large numbers of individuals to other Midwest states.

I can't really imagine it had much to do with voter turnout, however.


Me either, especially since it sounds like most Ohioans who left went to other "red" states. I can't see that as having much aggregate effect on voting patterns for or against Bush, if any.


I don't know anyone, nor have I heard of anyone, who claims to have been energized to vote over the gay marriage issue. Based on the article and my own anecdotal observations, I suspect it is a myth that it was a primary motivating factor in the election.

I can also only give antecdotal observations, but Issue One in my hometown in Ohio was pretty huge. And on the Sunday before the election, the GOP went to most of the area churches and left leaflets about how "leftists" were going to destroy marriage, ban the Bible and allow abortions up until the day of birth. Of course, I can't really dissect how much of the increased turnout in this state was due to the gay marriage issue alone and distinct from other issues, but among relatives, the "faggot" issue was certainly a motivator. Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3981669.stm) a lot of people list Bush's "moral compass" or some such phrase, but again, 1) I don't think you could really dissect out "gay marriage" from the other "moral" issues in his platform; and 2) they don't necessarily say that motivated them to vote, just that it motivated them to vote for Bush once they were there.

The Catholic vote hasn't been looked at that much either that I've seen. Here (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15598_1.html) they note that Bush put 50,000 "team leaders" in across the country to court the Catholic vote, and that Bush won their vote over Kerry. But again, that only speaks to votes and not motivation to go to the poll.

Thanks for your perspective.

Your second link contained an bit of analysis that I find interesting:

"Amusingly, one big improvement in Bush ’s performance actually came from those who never go to church. He won 36% of this group compared to 32% last time.*

While it is certainly not the case that Bush rode to office on a wave of atheism and secularism, these patterns reveal the complexity of Bush coalition—it was not just the 'religious right.'"

Cool Hand

[Roland98]

Your second link contained an bit of analysis that I find interesting:

"Amusingly, one big improvement in Bush ’s performance actually came from those who never go to church. He won 36% of this group compared to 32% last time.*

While it is certainly not the case that Bush rode to office on a wave of atheism and secularism, these patterns reveal the complexity of Bush coalition—it was not just the 'religious right.'"

Cool Hand

I'd be a bit cautious in automatically equating "never go to church" with "secular/atheist." I know far too many people who don't attend church because they simply cannot find any that are conservative enough. I'd be interested in seeing those numbers broken down further into better group descriptions, especially if there were 2000 numbers for the same groups to compare to.

[HelenM]

I'd be a bit cautious in automatically equating "never go to church" with "secular/atheist." I know far too many people who don't attend church because they simply cannot find any that are conservative enough. I'd be interested in seeing those numbers broken down further into better group descriptions, especially if there were 2000 numbers for the same groups to compare to.

I can't imagine conservative Christians checking "never go to church". What you describe are people who haven't found a church they like enough that they become a regular part of it. But I doubt that they never go; for one thing, looking for a church generally involves going to church. If they can't find a conservative enough one then that implies they've looked. Furthermore "never to to church" implies an antipathy towards church I doubt that conservative Christians have in the same way some nontheists have. I find it hard to imagine a conservative Christian taking a stand against church on principle. I think it's likely that they would go with friends sometimes, etc.

Do you know what these people are looking for in a church that they can't find, because it's not conservative enough?

I ask out of curiosity because I know a number of people who have changed churches because there was something they didn't like about the church, but I don't know any who have quit going altogether because not one church they could get to is conservative enough. I'm surprised to hear that there are pockets of America devoid of conservative churches.

Helen

[HelenM]

I have read the values-vote thread, but thank you, Helen. I agree with the critique up to a point, but I see a number of holes in it and even if it's partly true, I have a hard time believing that gay marriage didn't play a significant role in Republican turnout this time. (One possible hole that I haven't followed up: Do the reports saying that turnout wasn't increased in the 11 gay-marriage-initiative states compared to 2000 take into account migration over the last four years?)

I don't find it hard to believe, because I can easily envisage that people who care enough to show up and vote against gay marriage care enough to show up and vote for President. Do you really think there are lots of people out there who don't care who is President but really care about whether gay marriage is legal? Who, once they got to the polls to vote against same-sex marriage thought "I guess while I'm here I'll vote for a Presidential candidate - may as well"? I find that unlikely and evidently so does the poll to which Roland referred.

I think it's most likely that the moral values vote was similarly significant (or insignificant) four years ago but it's getting a lot more press coverage this time. Granted, I'm not in a state where there was a same-sex marriage question; nevertheless I didn't see any less emphasis here on Christians voting according to their Christian values in this election than four years ago.

Helen

[HelenM]

a huge number of Democrats just didn't seem to want to back their candidate. Throughout the whole campaign, I got used to seeing countless forum posts and editorials from American lefties characterising Kerry as the lesser of two evils - endless variations on 'Bush is so bad, I can almost bring myself to just barely manage to stomach voting for Kerry.'

Indeed.

Whatever analysis is done, the bottom line is that Kerry/Kerry's platform wasn't appealing enough to enough people (compared to Bush/Bush's platform) to win the election.

Helen

[Roland98]

I can't imagine conservative Christians checking "never go to church". What you describe are people who haven't found a church they like enough that they become a regular part of it. But I doubt that they never go; for one thing, looking for a church generally involves going to church. If they can't find a conservative enough one then that implies they've looked. Furthermore "never to to church" implies an antipathy towards church I doubt that conservative Christians have in the same way some nontheists have. I find it hard to imagine a conservative Christian taking a stand against church on principle. I think it's likely that they would go with friends sometimes, etc.

Nope. Perhaps they did at one point, but it would have been before my time.

Do you know what these people are looking for in a church that they can't find, because it's not conservative enough?

I would say something like Fred Phelps' church would probably suit them. AFAIK, there are none in this area that are quite that bad.

I ask out of curiosity because I know a number of people who have changed churches because there was something they didn't like about the church, but I don't know any who have quit going altogether because not one church they could get to is conservative enough. I'm surprised to hear that there are pockets of America devoid of conservative churches.

Oh, it's not devoid of conservative churches; hell, my in-laws go to one that's quite the fire-and-brimstone, 6-day creation, young earth pot o' goodness. But apparently this area is just devoid of conservative churches that are "godly" enough.

They used to have their own meetings in their basement for awhile (this was as recently as maybe 5-10 years ago), but several of the families who attended moved out of the area and AFAIK, that was the end of that.

They're quite proud now that they don't go to church, and vocal in reminding others how corrupt and Satanic their "ordinary" churches are.

Yay rural Ohio! :)


(I also have friends who are an offshoot of Mennonites, who broke off because the Mennonites became too "liberal" as far as what they required of a woman's dress, hair, etc. They also formed a group with several families as a makeshift church, but I have no idea if they still meet today or what their answer to that question would be).



ETA--just to clarify, I don't at all think the types of people described above would make up a large number of "don't go to church" folks; indeed, quite the opposite in that I recognize they'd be a tiny fraction. They were just one example, since they've been in my mind quite a bit since the "us vs them" thread. I do, however, think there are a lot of people who don't go to church who'd hardly consider themselves secular or atheist.

[HelenM]

I ask out of curiosity because I know a number of people who have changed churches because there was something they didn't like about the church, but I don't know any who have quit going altogether because not one church they could get to is conservative enough. I'm surprised to hear that there are pockets of America devoid of conservative churches.

Oh, it's not devoid of conservative churches; hell, my in-laws go to one that's quite the fire-and-brimstone, 6-day creation, young earth pot o' goodness. But apparently this area is just devoid of conservative churches that are "godly" enough.

They used to have their own meetings in their basement for awhile (this was as recently as maybe 5-10 years ago), but several of the families who attended moved out of the area and AFAIK, that was the end of that.

Having meetings in their basement is usually thought of as "house church". However, I take your point that it was 5-10 years ago or so.

They're quite proud now that they don't go to church, and vocal in reminding others how corrupt and Satanic their "ordinary" churches are.

Yay rural Ohio! :)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sense a very derisive tone in the above. Maybe you don't like their values, but don't you at least respect them for having strong enough values to make definite decisions about which church they want to be aligned with? Are you against having strong values per se?

(I also have friends who are an offshoot of Mennonites, who broke off because the Mennonites became too "liberal" as far as what they required of a woman's dress, hair, etc. They also formed a group with several families as a makeshift church, but I have no idea if they still meet today or what their answer to that question would be).

I expect anyone going to a makeshift church or church in their basement still considers it a church and wouldn't say they never go to church. I think they would consider "never go to church" implies they are secular and would rather check an option which indicates otherwise, even if their church is a small and/or home-based one.

ETA--just to clarify, I don't at all think the types of people described above would make up a large number of "don't go to church" folks; indeed, quite the opposite in that I recognize they'd be a tiny fraction. They were just one example, since they've been in my mind quite a bit since the "us vs them" thread. I do, however, think there are a lot of people who don't go to church who'd hardly consider themselves secular or atheist.

Maybe; I still think those people would check "rarely; seldom" rather than "never". I don't think people who would go to church if the right church was avaiable are likely to think of themselves as never going to church; I see that more as a box that atheists/secular people adamantly against attending any church ever would check.

Helen

[Goliath]

Maybe you don't like their values, but don't you at least respect them for having strong enough values to make definite decisions about which church they want to be aligned with?



I look forward to the day when someone can actually explain to me why xians should be worthy of my respect merely for having the values that they have.

[livius drusus]

Let's make an effort to keep this thread on-topic, please.

[Roland98]

They're quite proud now that they don't go to church, and vocal in reminding others how corrupt and Satanic their "ordinary" churches are.

Yay rural Ohio! :)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sense a very derisive tone in the above. Maybe you don't like their values, but don't you at least respect them for having strong enough values to make definite decisions about which church they want to be aligned with? Are you against having strong values per se?

I am not against them, but I see no reason to automatically respect strong values, no.

(I also have friends who are an offshoot of Mennonites, who broke off because the Mennonites became too "liberal" as far as what they required of a woman's dress, hair, etc. They also formed a group with several families as a makeshift church, but I have no idea if they still meet today or what their answer to that question would be).
I expect anyone going to a makeshift church or church in their basement still considers it a church and wouldn't say they never go to church. I think they would consider "never go to church" implies they are secular and would rather check an option which indicates otherwise, even if their church is a small and/or home-based one.

And I would probably agree with that, but I prefer not to speak for them, and as I mentioned I have no idea if they even do that today or not.

ETA--just to clarify, I don't at all think the types of people described above would make up a large number of "don't go to church" folks; indeed, quite the opposite in that I recognize they'd be a tiny fraction. They were just one example, since they've been in my mind quite a bit since the "us vs them" thread. I do, however, think there are a lot of people who don't go to church who'd hardly consider themselves secular or atheist.
Maybe; I still think those people would check "rarely; seldom" rather than "never". I don't think people who would go to church if the right church was avaiable are likely to think of themselves as never going to church;


*shrug* I simply disagree. We can bat opinions back and forth, but it's a fairly useless exercise without any stats to back either of us up. The article doesn't detail what exactly were the options to check; they mention "weekly or more often," "monthly," and "never," but don't give the wording of the questions or if those were the only options.

I see that more as a box that atheists/secular people adamantly against attending any church ever would check.

How so? Do you not know anyone who simply never goes to church, yet would self-identify as some kind of theist? I have lots of friends who, if you asked them, would probably consider themselves as Christians of some sort of the other, yet simply don't attend church; some never have, even growing up. And then you have someone like me who occasionally attends UU services, so that would take me out of the "secularist/never" category. I just think "frequency of church attendance" is a poor proxy for how religious one is.


ETA:

Let's make an effort to keep this thread on-topic, please.

Sorry, cross posted with you. Feel free to split this off, as it's not really addressing Adora's OP. Apologies for the derail.