I don't consider myself religious in the way that I go to church and pray and read the Bible. I did that in the past, got sick of the politics in the church and the want for money and more money. I've given up on organized religion and Christianity all together. I am spiritual in that I meditate on ideas and try to live my life a good person. Anyway, I picked not religious, but to most people I am not.

Politics I tire of. But I do follow them enough to know that I am liberal, much to my dad's dismay. He tried so hard with teh forcing into young republicans. However, when it comes down to most issues...liberal it is.

Tec, there are many different twists one could play on this. For example, most teahers are democrat. Well, obviously that's a generalization, but that's what I seem to find. You could pick out a group of people and pretty much 'generalize' their political views. Union workers would be another group to look at.

I think that this is interesting for a sociology point of view though and although this is a small chunk of society here in TFP, aren't most polls conducted in areas like this. I mean on Fox news, who do you think takes most of the polls? Just some food for thought.

Well, regarding polling, an organization like FoxNews...yes, I would put about the same worth in their polls as this one. However, there are far more respectable polling organizations that go through a LOT of effort in their data gathering. As much as people would LIKE to not believe it, there is most certainly a science to polling when done properly. It's separating the crap from the good stuff that requires more effort than most people are willing to put into it, so instead the idea that all polls are inherently crap is born.

From looking at a lot of polling before the last election, I really do think they are all crap. How you ask a question, what questions you ask, and who is willing to take the time to respond play a big part, and often the correction factors use VERY fuzzy logic.

I consider myself to be an "atheist centrist standing on my right foot", but a lot of people insist I'm a conservative to more degrees than I will agree too.

That kind of polling is much more subjective, yes. First off, a poll is worth absolutely *nothing* if you don't have access to what exact questions were asked, what conditions, etc. Also, polls that are of higher quality have multiple controls. For example, polls recording trends over long periods of time ask the same question over, literally decades. Anyone who takes a class on statistics will tell you that statistics can be manipulated, but they will also appreciate that statistics are not worthless and, with the right information available, it is possible to gauge just how much certain statistics are worth. There are entire classes dedicated to the science of polling, especially in poilitical science departments. LOTS of polling is done poorly. It doesn't mean polling is inherently bad, it means that you need to put more effort into assessing polls to decide what they're worth. And, like statistics, it means that you need to look at multiple sources because nothing is perfect.

Extremely non religious | conservative-ish

I never really consider myself a liberal, since I've always felt it to be a term meaning someone who changes something just to bring about change, which in itself is not necessarily always good.

I like to think about myself as progressive, since even changes that seem like they may take a step back, in the end, fulfill some sort of genuinely good change.

Also, not religious, in any deistic sense. More towards stuff that Huxley describes in his Perennial Philosophy, if anything at all.

Pagan activist and Free thinker here. I'm liberal on most social issues and conservative on most other issues, but I put myself in the Religious Liberal category.

I am religious - and considered conservative.

Much to my dismay.

Why does everyone seem to group Libertarians with Republicans?
I do not have a specific system of belief that I follow. I was raised Mormon, and tend to enjoy Catholic Mass... but my heart is with Taoism, which my Catholic friends say is just a philosophy but I tend to disagree.

So I am religious in the sense that I love The Way, and I enjoy singing hymns that worship Jesus. And I am "conservative" only because people don't see Libertarians as anything but conservative - even though Libertarian thought jumps to every side of the spectrum.

Religion is for people afraid of hell-spirituality is for people who have been there. Spiritual conservative, generally.

Agnosticish. While I think that there has not been any real proof of a god or gods that have created the universe (or none that I will buy into), I suspect that there has to be a better reason for us being here than a big bang. Regardless, if there is a god, I don't think any religions as we know them today are doing his/her will. Not to say that there aren't some people who are, but organized religions I don't think are.

And I think that I'm conservative or liberal based on the specific issue. I may agree with many conservatives on something such as the death penalty, but I will likely disagree with their views on imposing their morality on others. Maybe that's why I dislike partisan politics. I don't like aligning with another based on simply sharing many of their points of view.

I'm not religious, but I am spiritual nowaways. I consider myself a buddhist. I'm very much liberal, in that I would not support starting a war, I believe in taxes to support public education and science, strong environmental regulations, solar-based energy(panels and biofuel - no hydrogen cells please!), and strongly believe that the drug war and war on terrorism are both misguided. I believe ideological quests are more often than not, harmful.

Perhaps you spoke too soon. The correlation between religon and conserativism appears to be showing up pretty clearly in the poll at the moment. (Conservatives; approx 50% religious. Liberals; approx 30% religious)

Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, likely heading for hell as all non-believers do!

;)

Yup, you are interpreting the data correctly. Obviously, it's a small sample of the membership of a particular message board, but there is a definite correlation - those who identify themselves as liberal are more likely to be non-religious and those who identify themselves as conservative are more likely to self-identify as religious.

All religions are an institution of man, and as such are inherintly flawed. I personally see no reason to give my time or money to enrich an organization engaged in often dubious pursuits which refuses any and all external oversight.

Some would say that according to pascals wager, it is better to believe and be wrong, than it is to NOT believe and be wrong. But i have always felt that if there is a god, he'll understand. And if he doesn't he is not God.

Also, i find the idea that religion is mostly destructive to be patently false. Religion gives people hope and comfort. It offers an example to aspire to. It has given us a moral code, and a super-natural reason to follow it. (From both the carrot and big stick end of things.)

So, I am non-religious, and as a general rule i am fairly liberal.

That may be true... but the extreme left (socialism, marxism, communism) are based in blatantly anti-religious ideologies, and inasmuch as extreme conservatives are given their title based preserving the status quo of social power structures, this includes religion...

I agree that in reality there is no correlation, but there is a reason for people to perceive an imaginary connection based on (perhaps loosely) affiliated ideologies... so it should not be so surprising.

I find these religious/political associations to be very disingenuous, at best. To categorize the human thought process in such a simple manner - that is, to assign beliefs to a person based on other beliefs which they may have - is just ridiculous.

The tendency to generalize political and religious viewpoints tend to make discussions within these topics almost meaningless. The tag line "As seen on T.V!" comes to mind.

I just call it lazy thinking.

I would tend to agree. However, catagories are often useful as intellectual short-hand. It helps to contextualize someones comments, and therefore to judge the relevence of thier opinions.

Me... I'm not really religious and mostly liberal.

And just for the sake of argument... I know tons of people that aren't religious but are very conservitive. Like... most of my family.

I can not answer your question because Liberal people consider me conservative and Conservative people consider me Liberal.

Where goes the limit between religious and not religious?

There is no option for me. I am not sure if I am religious, and I don't follow politics.

Liberal on most social issues, religious.

I think it would depend a lot on the particular religion. Southern Baptists would, I would guess, tend to be mostly conservative along with Catholics, while Jews and Wiccans and Unitarians tend to be more liberal. Each group is going to have a mix, of course. We have conservatives at our church, even though it's one with a good half dozen openly homosexual couples.

Gilda

To classify myself, I am a Buddhist and a Democrat for the most part.

However, I consider my self a Socialist Democrat.

Taken from astrahl

My Issues:

Abortion: woman's choice
Gun controls: no semi automatics
Stem cells: pro
Term limits: pro
Religion in school: against
Evolution: no-brainer, pro
Creationism: literally...NO brainer, against
Right to die: pro
Drug legalization: only natrual grown
Death Penalty: pro
Media censorship: against
Political correctness: against

Tecoyah, I can't answer your question either. There weren't enough options! :) My husband and I have trouble fitting in anywhere simply because we're too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. We're both deeply spiritual but not really religious in the sense I think you mean. I'm sure there's a huge sub-set of people out there with similar qualities, but I haven't managed to find any yet... As an eg: With hubby in the AF we are constantly "attacked" by the friends of our ultra-liberal friends. We're asked to defend the views of the extreme right, and it's assumed that we share those views. While amongst those of our friends with serious right leanings we're "attacked" and asked to defend the views of the "hippy tree-huggers" we've also befriended. So I guess our answer is, somewhere in the middle on both counts?

I am religious...and considered conservative

The first statement is absolutely correct.

The second statement is only my opinion. I really don't know how I am considered on a political level. I am about as non-political as a person can be.

I have to quibble over the term "religious." You have the type of people who attend church, follow its doctrine and consider themselves religious even though they may contradict themselves (e.g. "love thy neighbor" but have intolerance and perhaps even hate for homosexuals). Then you have the type of people who may not attend any church but have an unconditional acceptance of people, have extraordinary patience and actually live the concept of unconditional love.

I don't consider myself religious, but I don't discount the possibility of the existence of God. I don't think any of the world's religions have adequately explained who God is and why God exists; nor do I believe that God is necessarily Christian, Jewish, Muslim or of any other religion.

I truly see no connection between religious and political beliefs. I think people are more comfortable grouping these two together in nice, convenient stereotypes, but again, have to go back to the definition of religious. Conservatives believe they have the cornerstone on religion, yet liberals advocate tolerance, forgiveness and understanding. Each of the two major political camps are filled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

I believe in my right to defend myself with deadly force, if necessary. Owning a firearm guarantees me that protection, and I have no problem whatsoever with killing someone in self defense, especially if it's an intruder inside my home. And I believe that abortion is tantamount to murder; however, it is the law of the land, and I therefore support a woman's right to choose. I hope that my daughters would never opt for an abortion, but it is their right to choose, not government's right to impose its will. Having said that, my daughters will have to accept the consequences of their decision either way. I am not homosexual nor am I attracted to other men. Still, it's none of my business how someone decides to live his or her personal life. I do not believe that a homosexual Boy Scout leader is going to "contaminate" the boys nor secretly recruit them into the Secret Gay Society. I don't believe in political correctness; I grew up believing in manners. These are two different things. Common sense drives one and is completely absent in the other.

By the way, I don't believe in the concept of "hate crimes." When you murder someone, that in itself is already a pretty extreme form of hate.

I'm religious, but I'm a moderate. Or something. Niether Conservative nor Liberal fits me well at all, so "not paying attention to politics" fits me best, I suppose.

My stances
 

Abortion: pro-choice
Gun controls: support assault-weapon ban
Stem cells: pro
Term limits: pro
Religion in school: against
Evolution: pro
Creationism: against
Right to die: pro
Drug legalization: pro
Death Penalty: con
Media censorship: against
Political correctness: against, but I do believe in sensitivity to and respect for all

I thought I had answered this thread...evidently not.

I answered non-religious liberal...but I'm actually agnostic with some "liberal" views and some "conservative" views. I probably lean more towards liberal than conservative though...when I lived in a very conservative area in NC my coworkers all called me a hippie, but here in my very liberal neighborhood...I'm definitely NOT a hippie. I guess I'm pretty hard to label, eh?

In my estimation, there are two reasons why people who self-identify themselves as religious tend to lean to the conservative side:

1. Some liberals who show the same sorts of mental tendencies as those who classify themselves as "religious" instead prefer the label "spiritual". I have never heard a compelling defense of this distinction, save for the comment that spirituality doesn't require organization. It seems to me that this distinction is reasonably meaningless, as both terms refer to the practice of belief in objects, principles, etc. that cannot be perceived or derived through logic. Namely, spirituality and religion are both institutions that encourage belief based on faith. If the people who follow your brand of religion choose not to gather together to perform religious ceremonies, you will likely say you are "spiritual, not religious".

I'm not sure why this is a predominantly liberal phenomenon, but I would guess it is at least partially related to the fact that most organized religions espouse conservative social doctrines that alienate potential liberal members.

2. Some liberals who show the same sorts of mental tendencies as those who classify themselves as "religious" instead place their faith in "atheistic religions", primarily Marxism. This particular ideology contains a messiah, prophecy about the future, the attainment of heaven, etc. Further, it caters to one dream of members on the far left: the end of socioeconomic class discinctions and discrimination. That said, Marxism is not a falsifiable doctrine and the empirical evidence for the imminent communist revolution is, er... lacking.

It is my opinion, then, that it is true in the literal sense that conservatives are more "religious" than liberals... if the "religious" label is one that is self-identified. That said, many liberals are attracted to ideologies that satisfy similar needs. These alternatives are not typically classified as religions because they do not represent organizations dedicated to the worship of a deity. (This also explains why Buddhism is sometimes classified as spiritual as opposed to religious.)

As for myself, I'm an atheistic conservative.

Abortion: pro-choice, only as a last resort, adopt in all cases unless the mother is threatened.
Gun controls: gun laws only stop the lawful from owning guns.
Stem cells: pro, they have so many good uses
Term limits: pro keeping mixing it up.
Religion in school: religion is for church, science is for the schools
Evolution: I do believe in evolution
Creationism: keep it in the church where it belongs
Right to die: as long as you are of sound mind, if you don’t want to live, you should be able to die.
Drug legalization: legalize and tax the hell out of it.
Death Penalty: if just one innocent dies, we are all murderers. Lock them all up for life if we have to, if it’s too expensive, make them farm and let them eat imitation gruel. The system needs to be fixed; there is too much emphasis on winning, not finding the truth.
Media censorship: just change the damn channel, and have the sense to monitor your children
Political correctness: fuck political correctness; just know who you can joke with and who you can’t.

Libertarian Atheist

Well said, this is exactly what I was thinking.

No religion, no politics for me...

I do not consider myself religious, or politically aware.

Although, I have studied a few religions throughout high school, and have some knowledge concerning the most popular religious views accepted. The views presented in these religions I consider to be only philosophy; most have flaws, and all can be questioned. This is the reason I do not consider myself to be religious. I consider myself to be a philosopher. Questioning the the most simple morals of my culture from a young age, there has always been an inner-understanding that all views should be considered and then validated.

My opinion for politics are completely different.

All I have heard from a young age is that all politicians, and political parties have their positive and negative aspects. Most politicians, and political parties are corrupt in some way. The people working with the government are payed, so they shouldn't abuse it for their own benefit. Every job has it's perks, but manipulating the system for a select few instead of the greater good isn't a very fair form of running any social group.

We gave them our trust to run the country, since we may not be capable of doing an equal or better job. Conspiracy theories, hidden agendas, closed room meetings and classified documents are usually explained to be secretive for national security. I cannot trust this though. All secretive documents are like bottles underneath the sink without any labels. Would you like a label before you used, or even allow these bottles to be sitting in your house without being aware of what they are capable of. The bottles are kept behind locked doors by the government, but they are still being used in our country. How am I supposed to trust my government if they are not able to trust me? I do not vote, I do not watch politics, for I don't know which bottles they are going to be using.

Libertarian agnostic with atheistic leanings.

I agree with meembo!

I'm a very liberal, quasi-religious person. Well actually I take that back. I wouldn't call it religious, exactly. I'm more spiritual. I know it's kinda cliched or whatever, but still, that's my stance.