Four-times-indicted former president Donald Trump has been successfully selling white Christian nostalgia, racism and xenophobia to his base. However, the Public Religion Research Institute’s massive poll of 6,616 participants suggests that what works with his base might pose an insurmountable problem with Gen Z teens and Gen Z adults (who are younger than 25).

Demographically, this cohort of voters bears little resemblance to Trump’s older, whiter, more religious followers. “In addition to being the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in our nation’s history, Gen Z adults also identify as LGBTQ at much higher rates than older Americans,” the PRRI poll found. “Like millennials, Gen Zers are also less likely than older generations to affiliate with an established religion.”

Those characteristics suggest Gen Z will favor a progressive message that incorporates diversity and opposes government imposition of religious views. Indeed, “Gen Z adults (21%) are less likely than all generational groups except millennials (21%) to identify as Republican.” Though 36 percent of Gen Z adults identify as Democrats, their teenage counterparts are more likely to be independents (51 percent) than older generations.

  • grte@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Those Gen Z teens will look more like the Gen Z adults when they themselves become adults. They are being influenced by their parents. But religiosity has been and is continuing to collapse, basically everywhere. :)

    • conorm@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      5 months ago

      you just stated that the opposite is happening as to what the original post said, and religion is actually on the rise, whether you like it or not, there will be conflict in which the people who deny natural law will either accept natural law, or end by natural law :)

        • conorm@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          29
          ·
          5 months ago

          the people who disagree with the world being a truthful one cannot exist alongside a truthful world, and the world is truthful, you can shove your quran back to the fucking desert as i can tell you would bend over backwards to protect it despite being a self proclaimed “hater of religion”, i only hope the truth will come to you, though you don’t know to receive it :)

          • Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Let me know when all the religious folks can agree on what’s true and what’s not. Maybe then I can take religion seriously.

            • conorm@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              5 months ago

              abrahamic religions arent true, non-IE religions arent true, all IE religions that have syncretic features with non-IE religions are not true, that leaves very little room for misinterpretation, but you just fail to look for the truth

                • conorm@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  incorrect, natural law states that you are incorrect, the truth behind the world is observable and the irreligious/abrahamics fail to see this

                  • Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    “Natural law” exists outside the realm of religion, and anyone who claims to know the “truth” has closed themself off to new information. The truth is observable, but what’s observable today wasn’t observable 200 years ago, and what’s observable 200 years ago likely isn’t observable today.

        • conorm@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          5 months ago

          american article, invalid, abide by natural law and the sources will be in your own mind immediately :)

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Lots of comments in this thread have been reported, this one most obviously breaks rule 3, taking it out also kills the thread.

              “Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”