| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2004 01:51:38 AM |
| Object: |
Election a Referendum on Religion? |
Welcome to the Christian Republic of America.
---
Election Reinforces U.S. Religious Divide
Thu Nov 4, 4:12 PM ET
By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer
President Bush (news - web sites)'s victory, the approval of every
anti-gay marriage amendment on statewide ballots and an emphasis on
"moral values" among voters showed the power of churchgoing Americans in
this election and threw the nation's religious divide into stark relief.
"The churchgoers, those who voted along cultural lines, put (Bush) over
the top," said George Marlin, author of "The American Catholic Voter."
Albert Menendez of Americans for Religious Liberty, which advocates
strict church-state separation said "Bush could not have won without the
evangelical vote."
Exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by
Edison Media Research/Mitofsky International showed clearly that the
president draws much of his support from religious people:
_The president had the support of 78 percent of white evangelicals, 23
percent of the voters.
_Bush won 52 percent of the Roman Catholic vote on Tuesday, and got the
support of 56 percent of white Catholics, defeating the first Catholic
presidential candidate from a major party since John F. Kennedy. In
2000, Bush narrowly lost the Catholic vote.
_Bush was favored by 61 percent of people from all faiths who attend
services weekly; they made up 41 percent of the electorate. Democrat
John Kerry (news - web sites) drew 62 percent of Americans who never
attend worship, but they only accounted for 14 percent of voters.
_When respondents were asked to pick the one issue that mattered most in
choosing a president, "moral values" ranked first at 22 percent,
surpassing the economy (20 percent), terrorism (19 percent) and Iraq
(news - web sites) (15 percent).
Gay marriage bans were handily approved in all 11 states that held
referendums, and analysts said that issue drove up turnout. "This was a
high stakes election for those who support traditional moral values,"
said Geoffrey Layman, a University of Maryland political scientist.
Another index of evangelical support: Republicans seeking open
congressional seats who were endorsed by Gary Bauer (news - web sites)'s
conservative Campaign for Working Families. They won all 12 contests,
five in the Senate and seven in the House.
A leading conservative activist, the Rev. D. James Kennedy of Fort
Lauderdale, Fla., said the voters "have delivered a moral mandate."
"Now that values voters have delivered for George Bush (news - web
sites), he must deliver for their values," Kennedy said.
More liberal believers, meanwhile, found the results deeply
disconcerting, but also saw them as a call to action.
"This election confirmed that we are a divided nation, not only
politically but in terms of our interpretation of God's will," said the
Rev. Robert Edgar, a former Democratic congressman and general secretary
of the National Council of Churches.
The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and
State put it more starkly. "The culture war may go nuclear," he said, as
"millions of Americans oppose the theocratic agenda of the Religious
Right."
The problem, said Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun magazine, is that too
many fellow liberals are "trapped in a long-standing disdain for
religion and tone-deaf to the spiritual needs that underlie the move to
the right." They need to shed a core belief that Bush voters "are
fundamentally stupid or evil."
The left, he and others argue, has to show the religious basis for its
policy positions and not let the right define morality.
Each side courted the Catholic vote aggressively, with Kerry forced to
buck the leaders of his own church over his support of abortion rights.
A handful of bishops said politicians like Kerry shouldn't receive
Communion, and many others emphasized church teaching against abortion.
"To run in the Democratic Party you have to be pro-choice, but the
church says you have to be pro-life," said Marlin, a Catholic
conservative.
Layman, the Maryland political scientist, said that meant Kerry couldn't
"use his Catholicism as a strength to appeal to Catholics. He was put in
this box by the bishops."
In the end, the majority of Catholics preferred an anti-abortion,
Methodist incumbent to one of their own underscoring that today's
religious divide cuts across denominational lines.
The election shows that Democrats in 2008 "are going to have to say they
are religiously attuned to America and make it stick and make it
authentic," said Michael Cromartie, an expert on evangelicalism at the
conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center. "All future political
consultants are going to have to understand religious sensibilities as
part of the resume."
---
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=548&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20
041104/ap_on_el_ge/election_religion
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Vive le Resistance!
.
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Election a Referendum on Religion? |
05 Nov 2004 05:39:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:51:38 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> in news
message <jhachm-4EA914.23513804112004@news.giganews.com> wrote:
[----]
The left, he and others argue, has to show the religious basis for its
policy positions and not let the right define morality.
Pragmatically, the above suggest is valid. Many people vote their
religion and are either unaware or uninterested in the larger world
view that the Democrats espouse. I think it is important to couch the
issues that are the core of the Democratic thinking as moral issues.
Such as:
It is immoral to let 45 million Americans, many of them children, go
without adequate health care and possibly die preventable deaths
because they do not have insurance.
It is immoral to kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians for any reason.
It is immoral to ship American jobs overseas thereby impoverishing
American families.
It is immoral to saddle future generations of American citizens with a
debt amassed because of poor fiscal and aggressive, preemptive foreign
policies.
The Republicans have defined morality as merely sexual and
reproductive issues, and they're sticking to that because it works.
The wedge issues of abortion, gay marriage, Janet Jackson's tit, and
Bill Clinton's blowjobs have been made more morally repugnant than an
unnecessary war, an exported economy, American's in poverty, or human
rights.
I think it is necessary for the Democrats to make a moral plea that
these issues have more moral consequences than sex. Will the people
in the red states care? I don't know.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Election a Referendum on Religion? |
06 Nov 2004 03:08:28 AM |
|
|
In article <vdomo0ljna5vlmi7g0ksa10c2f6kkhi9mm@4ax.com>,
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:51:38 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> in news
message <jhachm-4EA914.23513804112004@news.giganews.com> wrote:
[----]
The left, he and others argue, has to show the religious basis for its
policy positions and not let the right define morality.
Pragmatically, the above suggest is valid. Many people vote their
religion and are either unaware or uninterested in the larger world
view that the Democrats espouse. I think it is important to couch the
issues that are the core of the Democratic thinking as moral issues.
Such as:
It is immoral to let 45 million Americans, many of them children, go
without adequate health care and possibly die preventable deaths
because they do not have insurance.
It is immoral to kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians for any reason.
It is immoral to ship American jobs overseas thereby impoverishing
American families.
It is immoral to saddle future generations of American citizens with a
debt amassed because of poor fiscal and aggressive, preemptive foreign
policies.
The Republicans have defined morality as merely sexual and
reproductive issues, and they're sticking to that because it works.
The wedge issues of abortion, gay marriage, Janet Jackson's tit, and
Bill Clinton's blowjobs have been made more morally repugnant than an
unnecessary war, an exported economy, American's in poverty, or human
rights.
I think it is necessary for the Democrats to make a moral plea that
these issues have more moral consequences than sex. Will the people
in the red states care? I don't know.
Great post, Liz! What the Republicans did was to take one or two wedge
issues like gay marriage and get it on as many ballots as possible. Then
they, with the help of the pastors, energize the church goers by hinting
that if Kerry were to win, gay marriage would be legal everywhere and
their states would be swamped by gay newlyweds. We see that as silly but
many don't.
If the Democrats couch these things in moral terms, as you have done,
perhaps more of the religious would listen.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
We lost a battle. The war goes on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Election a Referendum on Religion? |
06 Nov 2004 05:52:44 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 01:08:28 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Great post, Liz! What the Republicans did was to take one or two wedge
issues like gay marriage and get it on as many ballots as possible. Then
they, with the help of the pastors, energize the church goers by hinting
that if Kerry were to win, gay marriage would be legal everywhere and
their states would be swamped by gay newlyweds. We see that as silly but
many don't.
We also see it as dishonest merging of church and politics.
Of course the Republicans have been doing it for years through the
Christian Coalition and their "non-partisan" voter guides.
Christian Central would decide that somethingw as an issue, and
churches up and doen the country would preach the same sermon that
weekend, and follow it up with "non-partisan" voter guides.
I had thought that this had been stopped because it was a flagrant
breach of the churches' IRS status.
If the Democrats couch these things in moral terms, as you have done,
perhaps more of the religious would listen.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Election a Referendum on Religion? |
07 Nov 2004 01:29:25 AM |
|
|
In article <vgepo0t4ac5mb9f3k7eodmf9k88c9psq5d@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 01:08:28 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Great post, Liz! What the Republicans did was to take one or two wedge
issues like gay marriage and get it on as many ballots as possible. Then
they, with the help of the pastors, energize the church goers by hinting
that if Kerry were to win, gay marriage would be legal everywhere and
their states would be swamped by gay newlyweds. We see that as silly but
many don't.
We also see it as dishonest merging of church and politics.
Of course the Republicans have been doing it for years through the
Christian Coalition and their "non-partisan" voter guides.
Christian Central would decide that somethingw as an issue, and
churches up and doen the country would preach the same sermon that
weekend, and follow it up with "non-partisan" voter guides.
I had thought that this had been stopped because it was a flagrant
breach of the churches' IRS status.
I heard that the large turnout for Bush was in large part due to the
churches. They not only urged the congregations to vote, but called on
election day to remind people and in rural areas even provided free
transportation to the polling places. Now if they just said get out and
vote, that's one thing, if they said get out and vote for Bush, that's
quite something else. Also, was the transportation available for only
registered Republicans and Bush supporters?
I think that the matter should be investigated by the IRS to see if
these churches should retain their tax-exempt status. Then again under
the current theocracy, that's not likely to happen.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
We lost a battle. The war goes on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Election a Referendum on Religion? |
07 Nov 2004 07:37:30 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:29:25 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <vgepo0t4ac5mb9f3k7eodmf9k88c9psq5d@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 01:08:28 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Great post, Liz! What the Republicans did was to take one or two wedge
issues like gay marriage and get it on as many ballots as possible. Then
they, with the help of the pastors, energize the church goers by hinting
that if Kerry were to win, gay marriage would be legal everywhere and
their states would be swamped by gay newlyweds. We see that as silly but
many don't.
We also see it as dishonest merging of church and politics.
Of course the Republicans have been doing it for years through the
Christian Coalition and their "non-partisan" voter guides.
Christian Central would decide that somethingw as an issue, and
churches up and doen the country would preach the same sermon that
weekend, and follow it up with "non-partisan" voter guides.
I had thought that this had been stopped because it was a flagrant
breach of the churches' IRS status.
I heard that the large turnout for Bush was in large part due to the
churches. They not only urged the congregations to vote, but called on
election day to remind people and in rural areas even provided free
transportation to the polling places. Now if they just said get out and
vote, that's one thing, if they said get out and vote for Bush, that's
quite something else. Also, was the transportation available for only
registered Republicans and Bush supporters?
I think that the matter should be investigated by the IRS to see if
these churches should retain their tax-exempt status. Then again under
the current theocracy, that's not likely to happen.
That's been a contentious issue since the Christian Coalition
conspired with the Republican party and the local churches to have
much the same sermon preached up and down the country followed
immediately via the "non-partisan" voter guides about which Senator
and Congressman voted which way on the issue.
This time it was even more blatant. There's a reason gay marriage was
discussed in the Senate a few months ago. And why it was on the ballot
in the redneck states. With the votes of the Senators a matter of
public record.
It galvanised the fundy vote.
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Election a Referendum on Religion? |
07 Nov 2004 07:57:44 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
That's been a contentious issue since the Christian Coalition conspired with
the Republican party and the local churches to have much the same sermon
preached up and down the country followed immediately via the "non-partisan"
voter guides about which Senator and Congressman voted which way on the issue.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
I notice you failed to mention the influence of liberal professors from
(many) state supported institutions of higher learning and how they affect
very impressionable students and their votes.
A little selective in our criticism aren't we?
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
This time it was even more blatant. There's a reason gay marriage was
discussed in the Senate a few months ago.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
You also failed to mention that it was a democrat in Congress that produced
a bill for the draft in order to attack Bush with this rumoring. Even the
Dem that sponsored the bill voted against but not before the Kerry
campaigners tried desperately to tie it to the Bush administration.
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
And why it was on the ballot in the redneck states. With the votes of the
Senators a matter of public record. It galvanised the fundy vote.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
You can no longer assume that people outside the cities are "rednecks". In
case you hadn't heard farming as a way of life is on the decline and many
intelligent people simply prefer not to live in dirty, smoggy, crime laden,
traffic jammed, over-priced, over-crowded, crumbling, unsafe cities
(quaintly referred to by intellectual elite as "cultural centers") of the
very blue states . As if all that culture is worth the price of a reasonable
lifestyle in every other way.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Election a Referendum on Religion? |
05 Nov 2004 07:16:14 AM |
|
|
Liz wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:51:38 -0800, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> in news
message <jhachm-4EA914.23513804112004@news.giganews.com> wrote:
[----]
The left, he and others argue, has to show the religious basis for its
policy positions and not let the right define morality.
Pragmatically, the above suggest is valid. Many people vote their
religion and are either unaware or uninterested in the larger world
view that the Democrats espouse. I think it is important to couch the
issues that are the core of the Democratic thinking as moral issues.
Such as:
It is immoral to let 45 million Americans, many of them children, go
without adequate health care and possibly die preventable deaths
because they do not have insurance.
It is immoral to kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians for any reason.
It is immoral to ship American jobs overseas thereby impoverishing
American families.
It is immoral to saddle future generations of American citizens with a
debt amassed because of poor fiscal and aggressive, preemptive foreign
policies.
The Republicans have defined morality as merely sexual and
reproductive issues, and they're sticking to that because it works.
The wedge issues of abortion, gay marriage, Janet Jackson's tit, and
Bill Clinton's blowjobs have been made more morally repugnant than an
unnecessary war, an exported economy, American's in poverty, or human
rights.
I think it is necessary for the Democrats to make a moral plea that
these issues have more moral consequences than sex. Will the people
in the red states care? I don't know.
Excellent commentary on the one-issue-only mentality of so large a segment
of the American religious population. I couldn't agree more, and I don't
hesitate to say that as an orthodox Christian..
Denny
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Moose" |
|
| Title: Re: Election a Referendum on Religion? |
05 Nov 2004 09:04:32 AM |
|
|
I think it is necessary for the Democrats to make a moral plea that
these issues have more moral consequences than sex. Will the people
in the red states care? I don't know.
Excellent commentary on the one-issue-only mentality of so large a segment
of the American religious population. I couldn't agree more, and I don't
hesitate to say that as an orthodox Christian..
Denny
I agree, excellent commentary. To answer your question, no, the people in
the red states will not care as long as their clergy tell them not to. The
lemmings will continue to follow, right off the cliff.
Moose
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
