Anti-Christianity? “Black” Church Attendance Actually INCREASES Support for Kamala

By Selwyn Duke

Church-attendance habits have long been one of the best predictors of voting patterns. That is, regular attendees support Republicans by a significant margin, while those never or seldom attending break solidly Democrat. But a new study has revealed a striking exception to this rule: black American churchgoers.

In fact, just the opposite as with whites, black church attendees are more likely to support Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris than are black Americans who never attend.

That said, this phenomenon may largely just be correlation, explainable by way of black-church-attendee demographics.

Designer Christianity?

The study in question is the 2024 American Values Survey. Axios reports on it:

White Americans who attend religious services weekly or more often are significantly more likely to support Trump (76%) than Harris (21%), according to the survey by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and the Brookings Institution.

• Among Black Americans, religious service attendance has the opposite effect. Those who attend religious services more regularly are less likely to support Trump (13%) and overwhelmingly support Harris (85%).
• Somewhat similar to white Americans, Latinos who attend services weekly or more say they are more likely to vote for Trump (55%) than Harris (41%).

Yes, but: White Americans who seldom or never attend religious services are more likely to support Harris than Trump.

• Among Black Americans who seldom or never attend religious services, support for Trump nearly doubled to 23% compared to Black Americans who go to church often.
• Latinos who seldom or never attend religious services are significantly more likely to support Harris (65%) than Trump (33%), the survey said.

And the Children Shall Lead Them (and Maybe Should)?

Causation and correlation are two different things, however. As to this, a commenter at a related American Thinker article makes an astute point. Non-church-attending black Americans “are probably younger also and less susceptible to the lifetime of experiences and narratives,” he writes.

In point of fact, as with white churchgoers, regular attendees are older. It is precisely these elder blacks, too, who are most likely to support Harris. Just consider the results of a relevant September NAACP poll.

Twenty-six percent “of Black men under 50 years old said they supported Trump, versus 49% who backed Harris,” Reuters reported. “For Black men above 50, 77% said they supported Harris.”

This striking almost 30-point generational gap in support for Harris is also just the opposite of society-wide trends. As Pew Research Center informed October 10:

Voters under 50 are more likely to prefer Harris over Trump (50% vs. 41%) while those ages 50 and older prefer Trump (52% vs. 46%).

So why are younger black men more likely than their elders to lean Trump? Is a measure of youthful rebellion a factor here? Is it that younger black Americans are more apt to get information from the anti-establishment alternative media? Are they rebelling, too, against tyrannical woke culture? Is it partially because they’re more likely to have grown up with friends, and interacted with people, of other races? The explanation is no doubt multifaceted. Yet is one of these facets “black church” influence?

Poisonous Preaching

Pulling no punches, commentator Olivia Murray knows where she stands. Opining on black churchgoers’ Harris support, she writes:

What a sad state of affairs — the pulpits of the black church are tragically full of “shepherds” who are leading their lambs to the slaughter. But, what would you expect with people like Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton standing in the pulpit? What is especially sad is that the agenda of the Democrats disproportionately harms black Americans (cost of living, illegal migration, abortion), making it is doubly offensive.

There’s no such thing as a Christian who votes Democrat, because voting Democrat means you’re not walking with or submitting to the commands of Jesus Christ. The Lord who knit the “fearfully and wonderfully made” child together in the womb, does not want that little one torn apart by vacuum suction, an abortionist’s sopher clamp, or the tools of a “gender-affirming” surgeon — and I’m pretty sure there’s an important list somewhere in the Christian Holy Book that articulates what “thou shalt not” do, like steal and murder, which together are essentially the platform of the Democrat party: higher taxes, money-laundering through foreign aid and big spending bills, inflation, open borders, child mutilation “trans” care, and abortion. (As the joke goes, Heaven has strict immigration policies, while Hell has open borders.)

Better Off Not Attending?

Certainly in agreement is Jesse Lee Peterson, a black minister who founded the Brotherhood Organization for a New Destiny (BOND). Addressing the black church’s failings, he said in a 2009 sermon “that most black preachers are not called by God.” Rather, they’re called “by their mama.”

Peterson’s meaning? He has explained that many young black boys are pressured by their mothers or grandmothers to become preachers. (Being a minister has traditionally lent credibility in the black community.)

Consequently, these “preachers” “love money and power more than they love anything else,” Peterson warned later in the sermon. “And most of them are racist, anyway.” They “have this hatred in their heart.”

And how bad an influence are these ministers, according to Peterson? “I think we need to start a campaign to shut down the black churches,” he also said.

Of course, give Kamala Harris enough power and she may do this for him. Not only does she have a long record of anti-Catholic bigotry, but she also told two students who proclaimed “Christ is king!” at one of her recent campaign stops that they were “at the wrong rally.”

Given this, is it possible that if your pastor is supporting an anti-Christian candidate, you’re at the wrong church?

                   This article was originally published at The New American.