Pew survey: Catholics, Jews overrepresented in Congress
posted at 5:10 pm on December 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
They’ve been gaining for decades, to the point where our once heavily Protestant legislature is now only roughly as Protestant as the population itself: 54.7 percent in Congress versus 51.3 percent of Americans overall. For Catholics it’s 30.1 percent versus 23.9 overall and for Jews 8.4 percent versus 1.7 percent.
Differences become much more pronounced at the party level. While 70.8% of congressional Republicans are Protestant, fewer than half of Democrats (43.6%) belong to Protestant denominational families. On the other hand, the share of Democratic members who are Catholic (36.6%) is much greater than the number of Catholic GOP members (21%). And while Jews make up 13.4% of all congressional Democrats (including two independents who tend to caucus with the Democrats), they account for just 0.9% of congressional Republicans, with one Jewish Republican in the House and one in the Senate…
Congress, like the nation as a whole, has become much less Protestant and more religiously diverse. Indeed, the total percentage of Protestants in Congress has dropped from 74.1% in 1961 to 54.7% today, which roughly tracks with broader religious demographic trends during this period. As recently as the early 1980s, nearly two-thirds of Americans identified themselves as Protestants. In the recent Landscape Survey, the number of self-identified Protestants dropped to 51.3%.
Eyeball the tables at the link, especially the first one, and you’ll see that representation is remarkably proportionate by religious demographic, with no spread exceeding 6.7 percent — except for one subgroup. Can you guess which it is? Exit question: We can spare two or three seats in the Senate for a single family but we can’t set one aside for heathen nation? I’m ready to serve, if need be.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE!
CherokeeJack on December 19, 2008 at 5:12 PM
And this matters why? I thought we elected people, not their faiths.
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Religion.
Easiest way to deny representation in congress to 16% of Americans.
ernesto on December 19, 2008 at 5:14 PM
Meh.
I thought this was going to be spun out as a “atheists are underrepresented” post.
But I’m with Esthier on this one.
Skywise on December 19, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Reason: Relatively secular Catholics and Jews are more palatable to the non-religious 16% than a lot of Protestants (especially the evangelical types who chase down former members in order to publicly shame them).
Big S on December 19, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Perhaps Obama will institute a muslim affirmative action for Congress?
So Catholics and Jews are overachievers, everybody knows that!
Tony737 on December 19, 2008 at 5:19 PM
It’s about time we had a good old fashion religious purge.
Kini on December 19, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Don’t worry AP, we will be underrepresented for a little while more. But its not that far off that half of this country will be unaffiliated, and then our time will come.
muyoso on December 19, 2008 at 5:21 PM
And what percentage are crooks? :(
poxoma on December 19, 2008 at 5:22 PM
And what a glorious time it will be when the Christians are cut down to size!
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 5:23 PM
I await with bated breath the Pew survey stating that far-left liberals are overrepresented in Congress as well.
Snowed In on December 19, 2008 at 5:23 PM
I’ve never voted for or against someone because of his or her religion.
Or, if I had the chance, his non-religion.
It’s an interesting poll but I don’t think it tells us much of anything about public policies.
SteveMG on December 19, 2008 at 5:24 PM
@ Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 5:23 PM
They are doing it to themselves already.
muyoso on December 19, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Yes and have been for 2000 years.
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM
@ Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Only 10 years with the internet though. The internet is like kryptonite to religion.
muyoso on December 19, 2008 at 5:28 PM
AP – My guess is that there have been plenty of closet atheists in Congress….probably much more than the percentage of atheists in the general population.
Let’s face it though…as long as the unwashed masses continue to confess a faith in large majorities the politicians will continue to profess a faith to get elected.
JadeNYU on December 19, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Promise? I’d take AP for my Senator or Rep. Move to California dude.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 19, 2008 at 5:30 PM
I’d take a principled conservative atheist over Congressman Waxman or Senators Boxer & Feinstein any day.
JadeNYU on December 19, 2008 at 5:33 PM
@ JadeNYU on December 19, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Sadly, there are a lot of people, who wouldnt.
muyoso on December 19, 2008 at 5:34 PM
How is there such a thing as a Mormon Democrat?
raiderdav on December 19, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Dear Caroline,
Due to newly established Religious quotas, we find that Catholics are over represented, therefore we respectfully deny your request to be appointed to the Senate. But we would be willing to consider your request if you can get your uncle and five other Catholic Democrat Senators to resign immediately.
P.S. Please do not try to count Joe Biden toward this total.
Done That on December 19, 2008 at 5:36 PM
They’re maroons. I’m a pragmatist.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 19, 2008 at 5:36 PM
Self-government requires the governing of the self.
We need institutions to promote/nurture that self-governing.
Toss them away and don’t be surprised with the type and scope of government you get.
SteveMG on December 19, 2008 at 5:36 PM
So should we take that to mean that you’re in favor of Affirmative Action quotas, at least in government?
malclave on December 19, 2008 at 5:37 PM
I suppose because of the access to information that was previously denied the masses?
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Senator AP for the proud state of Heathen Nation? I like it.
Quiet as it’s kept, I’d vote for him as Senator for my home state too.
petefrt on December 19, 2008 at 5:39 PM
And the opposite is also true. Palin is “crazy” for thinking she can talk to God.
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 5:39 PM
I know it seems like an oxymoron, but then ‘Pinky’ Reid is a moron.
thomasaur on December 19, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Allahpundit for the Clinton seat — now we’re talking.
How do we shove aside that Kennedy tart and get our guy in line?
cthulhu on December 19, 2008 at 5:41 PM
I’d vote for you AP.
meltenn on December 19, 2008 at 5:43 PM
The danger, I’d like to remind our atheist friends, with religion is its absolutism when combined with state power.
Absolutism: The belief that one holds the Truth.
That dangerous belief manifests itself among non-believers as well.
Though you wouldn’t notice it if you read the more influential non-believing writers.
SteveMG on December 19, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Are there ANY atheist conservatives worth supporting for elected office? It seems like once you fell off the God-wagon, there is no telling what crazy shit you’d do next. See Communists.
Apologetic California on December 19, 2008 at 5:45 PM
There’s an element of truth to that. Few things make me question the existence of a loving creator like 4chan.
Take a hike, pal. I called dibs.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 19, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Really? Like Dawkins and Hitchens? They don’t believe they hold the Truth?
I must have been high the last few years.
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 5:47 PM
Good point, but isn’t what you’re willing to do about that truth equally important?
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 19, 2008 at 5:47 PM
You are dead on the money on that. Further, in the current climate, militant absolutism seems substantially more pervasive among atheists than people of faith, at least in this country.
AP, however, seems to tolerate us agnostics and Christians/Jews well. So let’s start the campaign now: AP for Senate 2010.
petefrt on December 19, 2008 at 5:52 PM
Run for Congress, AP. I mean Caroline Kennedy is going to need an opponent sometime in the future, right?
terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 5:59 PM
If Coleman goes down, there goes our lone Jewish Republican Senator.
ZzzzDad on December 19, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Pew named Coleman the winner, then? I’m satisfied with that.
Snowed In on December 19, 2008 at 6:02 PM
I got your campaign slogan AP:
Vote for AP – He’ll tell us when we’re doomed!
terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Sorry, that was my muddled point.
Hitchens/Dawkins et al. don’t appear to be concerned with their absolutism, their certainty.
If the danger is absolutism – not religion qua religion – then that can show up in a variety of ways. Not just in churches. But on secular grounds as well (Beria and Torquemada, same guys really).
After all, Hitchens in his salad days was going around extolling the virtues of Trotsky.
One would think he’d be a bit more humble.
SteveMG on December 19, 2008 at 6:03 PM
I took it as sarcasm. Maybe I read it wrong? Anyway, the proposition I support is this: “That dangerous belief [the belief that one holds the Truth] manifests itself among non-believers as well.”
petefrt on December 19, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that it’s not present in the influential non-believers.
Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Sure (I think); but forcing that truth (or Truth) on others won’t do it.
Although we obviously has some broader truths that we all agree to and force on others. Otherwise we spin out of control.
Boy, am I ever in over my head.
SteveMG on December 19, 2008 at 6:06 PM
Where do I order my button?
meltenn on December 19, 2008 at 6:06 PM
2 muslims in congress is 2 too many.
Andy in Agoura Hills on December 19, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Christians Unite: AP for Senate 2008!
petefrt on December 19, 2008 at 6:08 PM
LOL! I don’t know. But wouldn’t that be the perfect slogan running against a Fairy Princess like Caroline Kennedy (if she gets the Senate seat, of course)?
terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Nawww, man. How can you write off so many people in one fell swoop? What happened to individualism?
petefrt on December 19, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Pessimists Unite: AP 4 Senate!
No more than ever! Or whatever?
terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Incognito?
It wouldn’t make much difference – the others aren’t there much either. Constituents are better screwed incognito.
You’d be a more honest one under cover than they in the open, really.
Entelechy on December 19, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Tell ya what, as you may agree, stuff’s likely to get rough out there before it gets better. Were I still in my thirties or so, I’d prefer to keep my identity off the internet too… for family and business reasons
petefrt on December 19, 2008 at 6:17 PM
I am part of that 16%… of course I don’t want any religious representation, I just want credible, responsible representation.
Kaptain Amerika on December 19, 2008 at 6:26 PM
And a group that Republicans have, at times, gone out of their way to antagonize.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Figures, Senators are full of $^!+. (waving hands in a spooky way) Ooooh…end times…boogety boogety boogety!!!
And we have to remember this is only the religion that they are affiliated to, that they say they believe, that they pay tax/tithe to. The unaffiliated figures should cause concern. Not all of us unaffiliated are liars, we just don’t end up in congress.
LevStrauss on December 19, 2008 at 6:41 PM
They can’t help but eat their own.
LevStrauss on December 19, 2008 at 6:42 PM
I agree 100%, same for the Christians and their different brands and the Jews. As I see it there are only five that claim to have mental capacity, but I haven’t even got to their ideology yet so that number may still shrink.
LevStrauss on December 19, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Vote for AP for Senate 2010. It’s the Christian thing to do.
petefrt on December 19, 2008 at 6:54 PM
No. We are just overrepresented by IDIOTS.
HornetSting on December 19, 2008 at 6:54 PM
SteveMG on December 19, 2008 at 5:44 PM, are you there? Illustrates the point well, don’t you think?
petefrt on December 19, 2008 at 6:59 PM
And how do we know you’re not already in the Senate?
tom on December 19, 2008 at 7:01 PM
I thought liberals and socialists in Congress covered the heathen atheist vote and the heathen vote in general. My error.
eaglewingz08 on December 19, 2008 at 7:03 PM
No, Ed is more of a Senator. AP would be a better fit in the HOR.
LevStrauss on December 19, 2008 at 7:08 PM
@ TheUnrepentantGeek on December 19, 2008 at 5:45 PM
4chan is hilarious. Once you get passed your initial vomit reflex for the site, it really is the funniest place on the internet.
muyoso on December 19, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Run em’ both. We’d be better off.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 19, 2008 at 7:10 PM
4chan is hilarious. Once you get passed your initial vomit reflex for the site, it really is the funniest place on the internet.
muyoso on December 19, 2008 at 7:10 PM
All I’m saying is that there are some things you just can’t un-see.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 19, 2008 at 7:12 PM
@ Esthier on December 19, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Information, different cultures, criticisms on religion, etc. The exposure to those things before the internet was minimal at best.
muyoso on December 19, 2008 at 7:12 PM
I bet judgeships are even more tilted to Jews.. And of course add one more Senator after Al Franken steals this election.
Dennis D on December 19, 2008 at 7:16 PM
The Obama administration ( So Far) doesn’t have many White Christian Males at all. You know, the people who founded this nation and signed the US Constitution.
Dennis D on December 19, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Can you provide evidence to back up this claim? I ask because when I think of groups ‘antagonizing’ others on the basis of religion, my mind leaps to militant atheists, militant gay rights activists, and so forth.
Buy Danish on December 19, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Heh, took the words right outta me mouth. Obviously there’s something there deemed worth protecting. Again, don’t blame him a bit.
petefrt on December 19, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Hopefully we can agree, RUN ‘EM BOTH! Each would be AAA, especially compared to the present stock.
With a little luck, we’ll soon see bloggers competing for elected positions just as TV/radio/lawyer types do.
The only trouble with bloggers is they aren’t rich, except possibly AP.
petefrt on December 19, 2008 at 7:35 PM
The problem with Jews and Catholics in America is that they vote according to liberal views, not what you might suspect their religion might dictate. Those two groups are notoriously liberal in America. They earn plenty enough to vote republican, but their social justice views make them vote for people like obama. Not surprising that America’s lurge to the left in the past 30 years has been at the hands of a dramatic increase in Catholic and Jewish participation in politics.
keep the change on December 19, 2008 at 7:39 PM
I’m a Catholic and I vote Republican, almost entirely, even though I am registered as a “U”. Actually with me, Reagan is tied with Jesus for who gets the picture on the wall.
worlok on December 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM
There is a stark difference between “Catholics” and chuch going Catholics. Those that attend mass every week vote Republican. Those that don’t (and thus are not really Catholics anymore) vote Democrat.
ZzzzDad on December 19, 2008 at 7:47 PM
I agree that that is the trend, but there are exceptions. My wife and her mother go every week and my wife votes D. Her mother can’t vote b/c she’s not a citizen. (legal immigrant from Ireland)
worlok on December 19, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Maybe, but none of those groups are represented by Republicans in congress. Off the top of my head, every time a Republican utters the phrase, “Christian nation,” he’s telling about 20% of the country that they’re not really Americans. How about the “Godless money” ads? The constant attempts to slip Christian symbolism into schools, courthouses, city halls, and license plates (note: all of these attempts strongly suggest a government endorsement of religion and have no secular purpose). I can keep going if you need more.
Is it wise for Republicans to throw away the votes of yet another minority group? The country needs Republicans, if for nothing else than to provide some balance to the Democrats. Get it together.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 7:54 PM
One Nation Under God. What’s the problem?
johnnyU on December 19, 2008 at 7:56 PM
I am a Catholic. They decorated the lunch room at my job for Christmas. Looked great. There are several Jewish colleagues there so I went in one night and put up some Hanukkah stuff. Someone ripped them down and threw them away. Sad, very sad.
worlok on December 19, 2008 at 7:57 PM
White Christians males might have signed the Constitution but that doesn’t mean that women and other minority groups didn’t play a huge part in founding this nation. Also, Thomas Jefferson was a white male but do you really consider him a Christian???
terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 8:25 PM
I’m thinking the Atheists are hiding amongst the “Unspecified”.
Typhonsentra on December 19, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Like His Majestsy, The Feinsteins and Boxers and Waxmans of this world aren’t religious; they simply were born to people of a certain religion. They’re all secularists/atheists.
I don’t think there are enough observant jews or catholics in Congress.
On the other hand, we could use a few secular Muslims as well.
JiangxiDad on December 19, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Charming.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 8:51 PM
It makes you wonder if these people only write that kind of stuff on the internet and don’t say it out loud.
terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 9:05 PM
As a Catholic, I could not agree more with the findings of this survey, and with the needed response by the Democrats to keep our new tradition of diversity alive. I’ve also heard that Mr. Teddy Kennedy, Mr. Joseph Biden, Ms. Nancy Pelosi are attempting to avoid being forced to vacate their offices by announcing a new religion, whose code name (until a new one is chosen) is Pseudo-catholicism. Pseudo-catholicism will be nearly the same as Catholicism, except that anything that cannot scream loud enough to hear is not considered a person, nor are the feeble-minded, nor are the Irish (in keeping with Planned Parenthood philosophy). Kennedy is even now meeting with the Pseudo-pope in an attempt to get himself reclassified as of Italian extraction.
unclesmrgol on December 19, 2008 at 9:09 PM
Wow.
Do you mean this figuratively or would you like to bring back the Circus Maximus?
Did I get lost on my way to HotAir and end up at the DailyKos?
pannw on December 19, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Probably. I’d like to think we’re past the days when that sort of talk is socially acceptable, but I’ve overheard worse. I’m going to choose to believe he just posted it to make a conservative forum look bad.
RightOFLeft on December 19, 2008 at 9:35 PM
I think she was being sarcastic.
terryannonline on December 19, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Republicans don’t go out of their way to antagonize non religious people. It is one of the more subtle and effective forms of media bias. They are sure to give every Republican’s religion a close examination and give Democrats a complete pass.
zmdavid on December 19, 2008 at 10:59 PM
If you take out the phony pro-death Catholics like Biden and Murkowski and others, Catholics are UNDER-represented.
Sapwolf on December 19, 2008 at 11:47 PM
If that’s your thinking, your time has already come. Obama DID win.
Sapwolf on December 19, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Exactly, Sapwolf. Those aren’t actually Catholics in the Democrat party, unless you count clowns like Durbin and Biden, who support partial birth abortion and would be denied Holy Communion by any priest who follows Roman Catholic doctrine, even remotely.
Jaibones on December 19, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Riiiiiiight. That is about as common as Roman Catholic Bishops denying communion to pro-abortion politicians.
sanantonian on December 20, 2008 at 12:05 AM
So, the lack of religious affiliation is a religion that requires representation in government?
That’s been the end goal of the past 40 years of anti-religion, “strict wall of separation” policy. You have your representation. Prayer in schools, gone. Prayer in football games, gone. Discussion of faith in the classroom, gone. You’ll soon enough have “In God We Trust” removed from our currency.
You already own the government. Quit whining.
spmat on December 20, 2008 at 12:22 AM
LOL, avowed Atheists don’t get elected for several reasons:
1. Arrogance – Capital A Atheists simply cannot shut up about how stupid anyone who doesn’t not believe in God is. Religious Tolerance is their kryponite. Kind of a problem when 84% of the electorate believes in some concept of a greater power.
2. Apathy – Capital A Atheists only care about themselves primarily. Most of them want nothing to do with politics once it goes beyond calling anyone with religious faith a backwater hick.
3. Selfishness – On some level, people expect their public servants to actually care about their constituents. They don’t trust anyone whose sole concept of service is based upon hedonism. If an intellectually honest ardent atheist can be found, they’d rather not get into the game of serving special interest groups.
People would sooner elect a self-proclaimed Socialist than a self-proclaimed Atheist. In fact, it has already happened.
BKennedy on December 20, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Who cares…this is a total BS poll anyway.
I checked some of the statistics, many of the numbers are off by 300%+…is that what they call the “margin of error”?
SaintOlaf on December 20, 2008 at 2:06 AM
I dunno, given what I’m seeing, I’m beginning to think that a majority of ‘our’ congress is composed of practicing satanists. Hell, we have a POTUS-Elect who thinks it’s ok to leave babies to die of exposure and dehyration in a storeroom.
bullseye on December 20, 2008 at 2:10 AM
+ 1
Red State State of Mind on December 20, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »