Re-election of Obama was Truly an Unholy Alliance

In the recent election, the vote was close enough that you can point to a number of factors as having pushed Obama over the top.

Where such things really mattered, though, was in the all-important swing states, and that’s where the “nones,” as they’re being called, came into play.

The nones are the religiously unaffiliated, according to the Pew Research Center. That umbrella covers atheists, agnostics, “spiritual but not religious” and the “religious” but unattached to any specific denomination.

Or as I would term it, atheists, uncommitted atheists, superstitious atheists and closeted atheists.

Be that as it may, the “nones” made their presence felt. According to Pew, they make up 20 percent of the population and were 12 percent of the voters on Election Day.

In Ohio, Obama lost Protestants and Catholics by 3 percent and 11 percent, but the nones went for the Man Who Would Be King by a 47 percent margin.

In Virginia and Florida it was a similar story. Obama lost the church crowd, but he won the nones by huge margins — 76 and 72 percent respectively.

The top issues among the nones, who tend to be young, are gay marriage and abortion.

Economy? What economy?

So the long trend toward pushing Christianity out of public life has finally begun to pay off politically.

The Democrats’ strategy of focusing on sex and reducing women to sex objects turned out to be a shrewd insight into Obama’s base.

No wonder they left God out of the party platform.

Pollster J. Ann Selzer said that her pre-election polls in Iowas showed Obama losing among Catholics and Protestants, yet her final numbers still had him beating Mitt Romney. It wasn’t until she realized it was the “nones” who were causing the difference that the picture made sense.

“It was hard to think this was just Iowa,” Selzer said. “And it wasn’t. One of the reasons Barack Obama won was that he had the ‘no religion’ vote by a huge margin.”

Nationally, Obama lost the Protestant vote by 15 points, won the Catholic vote by 2 points (the defection of Catholics from their leadership is another story), and captured 70 percent of the “nones.”

“My question is what is it about having no religion that makes you align so dramatically with the Democratic Party,” Selzer says. “Sociologically, how fascinating is this?”

In my experience, the “religiously unaffiliated” want to live in their favorite sin without being judged. The Democratic Party has long been the haven for deviant behavior. So it’s a natural fit. Call them the “values-less voters.”

And it’s also only natural that they would be attracted to a candidate like Obama, whose entire career has been built on lies, coverups, abuse of power and disdain for traditional American values. They’re drawn to his narcissism.

The Pew studies try to not identify all of the nones as “nonreligious,” the euphemistic term for atheists, but realistically those unattached “believers” and “spiritual but not religious” types are de facto atheists.

Atheism is a religion as plainly as any other, though atheists like to pretend they belong in a special class of “nonreligion.” For decades, atheist groups, particularly the Freedom From Religion Foundation, have been wielding the courts as a hammer to pound Christianity and chase it from the public square.

Using a well-rehearsed schtick about feeling “offended” or “singled out” whenever Christianity is seen in public, the atheists have made inroads with liberal courts under a tortured interpretation of the First Amendment.

The result has been the slow, almost unnoticed growth of a nascent state religion that is now making itself known.