You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum. Posts should not exceed 100 lines. Copyrighted material from other sites must contain credits and links to the original site.

Politics.72
Politics and Religion	Topic Home Topics Forum Home Forums Home Search Settings Help Exit

This topic is for discussing the complicated interplay between politics and religion. It is NOT for espousing, recruiting, proselytizing, or in any way preaching the virtues, beliefs, or theology of any particular religion. Participants who cannot refrain from the above will be disqualified from this discussion.

{Politics.72.1}: Jane W {janew} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:30:27 EDT (16 lines)

{"http://slate.msn.com//id/2089641/#ContinueArticle"}

This is an interesting article about some of the myths involving
politics and religion.

The article outlines 7 myths:
Myth 1: Evangelicals all vote Republican.
Myth 2: The religious right flooded the polls for George W. Bush in
2000.
Myth 3: Bush's religion talk has appealed to his base but has
alienated moderate swing voters.
Myth 4: In this era, no candidate would lose votes just based on his
or her religion.
Myth 5: Most religious extremists are in the GOP.
Myth 6: Hispanics are conservative.
Myth 7: The key to the Catholic vote is abortion.

{Politics.72.2}: Roxanna Guilford {jordan} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:51:59 EDT (9 lines)

I'll have to read that.

I knew that 1, 4, 6 and 7 were myths. A lot of evangelicals devote
their lives to helping the poor. That IS their evangelism.


I'm not surprised that 2 is a myth.

i'd like to read more about 5 and 3

{Politics.72.3}: Andre Robinson {aardvarx} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:05:04 EDT (1 line)

thanx Jane...that was a real eye opener.  fascinating.

{Politics.72.4}: Jane W {janew} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:14:53 EDT (9 lines)

It really is isn't it?  I'm not religious so I've never really looked
at the role religion plays in politics -and I get bored by all
the "religious right" talk so I think I avoid it.

I hope they ask all the democratic candidates what they believe in
religious-wise at the next debate.  It will be interesting to hear
what they say and if they are prepared for the question.

Hmmm anyone know who is spondering the next debate?

{Politics.72.5}: {redleader} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:20:56 EDT (36 lines)
{name removed by chiles Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:55:17 EST}

  I always could have told you about #7. My whole family is Catholic
and almost nobody is pro-life.

  In fact, there was some statistic that Catholics are actually
underrepresented in hard-core pro-life groups, relative to the
population. In the US, opposition to abortion is overwhelmingly a
fundamentalist protest cause. My grandmother (five rosaries a day)
objected to abortion, but consistently voted democrat all her life.

  It is also true that the majority and the real power base of
conservativism has always been with the business conservatives, many
of which aren't religious at all. Some are actually anti-Christian,
but are cynical enough to use Christian fundamentalists so long as
they serve their agendas directly.

   Many very devout Christians are swing voters, liberals, or
apolitical. In fact, I think many Christians drop out of politics and
voting, becuause they don't like the Fundamentalist Right, but have
been (mis)lead to believe that more liberal groups would reject them
for their religious beliefs-which is overwhelmingly not true.

   Many Catholics are put off by Bush's religious rhetoric. One
relative of mine who is in her sixties said, "If a Catholic or Jewish
President tried to talk about God as much as he does, they'd never
get away with it."

   I actually respect politicians who don't spout their religious
beliefs much. I suppose "God bless America" is OK. But in a nation
with a seperate of church and state, it simply isn't the President's
job to be a religious authority. I want a moral human being all else
being equal, but that is different.

   I don't like it when issues like sex ed, and condoms get into
presidential debates because they are dealt with by local school
boards and state governments and aren't really relevant in a
President anyway.

{Politics.72.6}: Roxanna Guilford {jordan} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:00:34 EDT (9 lines)

>I get bored by all
the "religious right" talk so I think I avoid it<

That's fine, but there IS a religious right, and a powerful one. The
problem is that everyone who is right-leaning is tarred with the same
brush.

But listen to Pat Robertson. Focus on the Family.  Concerned Women For
America.

{Politics.72.7}: {redleader} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:22:46 EDT (33 lines)
{name removed by chiles Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:55:17 EST}

i'd like to read more about 5 and 3>>>>>>>

   Three is a little more complicated. It probably depends on what
cross section of "swing-voters" you are talking about. How people
react to talk about God, and in fact think about religious issues, is
much, much more complex and multi-faced than labels
like "conservative, liberal, moderate", or "fundamentalist,
evangelical, free-style, modern, practicant, etc", can really convey.

   I've said that non-fundamentalist Catholics are put off by Bush's
god talk. A lot of Catholics in America have a level of suspicion
towards hard-core protestants. You could make an arguement, that many
US, Catholics come from backgrounds, where that is somewhat grounded
in history. And almost any Catholic who doesn't have complete
historical amnesia, can smell that a double standard as to what a
Catholic and Protestant politician will say, still exists.
   Also among people who oppose Bush's wars and/or war in general,
Bush's belief that God wants him to do this can be more disturbing to
a devout Christian than to an atheist, agnostic, and even nominal
Christian or member of another faith. It is a lot harder to hear
someone who theoretically shares your religious beliefs use them for
something you think is wrong, than to hear someone using something
that is pretty irrelevant to you.

    And I don't mean in just the "us vs. them" sense. I mean in
having your deepest beliefs co-opted by someone who does not share
your values. To have someone who claims to represent you, do things
you don't feel very represented by.

Five, is somewhat straightforward. To some extent it is a number's
game. But a lot of fundamentalists are actually quite apolitical,
don't vote, and are more inwardly focused than concerned about
politics.

{Politics.72.8}: Roxanna Guilford {jordan} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:07:05 EDT (8 lines)

hmm. The extremist one is a technicality:

>>But what about the other end of the religious spectrum?
Statistically speaking, secular people (atheists, agnostics, etc.) are
extreme, too, in the sense that they are well outside the public
opinion norm.<<

I'd be hard pressed to call an agnostic a religious extremist!

{Politics.72.9}: Jane W {janew} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:07:29 EDT (6 lines)

> The
problem is that everyone who is right-leaning is tarred with the same
brush.


Maybe in the cafe but not in real life.

{Politics.72.10}: Roxanna Guilford {jordan} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:15:00 EDT (5 lines)

Maybe.

Maybe it's from living in the south, but there seems to be, in my
experience (ymmv), a tendancy to equate conservative politics with
conservative religion.

{Politics.72.11}: Andre Robinson {aardvarx} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:05:42 EDT (15 lines)

>>>Maybe it's from living in the south, but there seems to be, in my
experience (ymmv), a tendancy to equate conservative politics with
conservative religion.

walks like a duck...

I think your tendency is a fair one.  There is such a confluence of
religion and politics in the South that your equation makes a lot of
sense.  Things just aren't nearly as secular as in other parts of the
country.  They don't call it the Bible belt for no reason.  Religion
dominates civil society.  Even good liberals go to church in the
South.  Odds are your politics are going to match your world
view...and if that world view is dominated by conservative religious
doctrines like those of the Southern Baptists then the outcome is
purty obvious.

{Politics.72.12}: Jane W {janew} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:34:48 EDT (12 lines)

From the link:

>Myth 3: Bush's religion talk has appealed to his base but has
alienated moderate swing voters. Actually, 56 percent of independents
think he mentions his religious faith just the right amount compared
to 20 percent who say he does it too much, according to a Pew
Religion Forum study. Even most Democrats agree. Attacking Bush's
religiosity will not be politically fruitful; alternatively, a
Democratic candidate unable to discuss his own faith will place
himself defiantly outside the mainstream.

Apparently one ignores religion in the political arena at ones peril.

{Politics.72.13}: Roxanna Guilford {jordan} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:45:42 EDT (14 lines)

Andre, I wouldn't say the South's world view is dominated by
**conservative**   religious doctrines. It's just more prevelant.

But then again, a different religious world view informed the civil
rights movement and is behind several programs that work with the
poor, with new immigrants and with others who are disenfranchised.

On the other hand, we now have a governor who's supporting the display
of 10 Commandments in a rural courthouse.


>Apparently one ignores religion in the political arena at ones peril.

Yep. You gotta pander whether you believe or not.

{Politics.72.14}: {redleader} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:30:10 EDT (29 lines)
{name removed by chiles Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:55:17 EST}

I'd be hard pressed to call an agnostic a religious extremist!>>>>>

   An atheist might be in the sense that they are so atypical of
humanity. Only a tiny percentage of all humans globally are atheists.
And in the past it tended to be fewer. But on the whole, I think
atheists and agnostics are minorities in most liberal parties and
movements.

Maybe it's from living in the south, but there seems to be, in my
experience (ymmv), a tendancy to equate conservative politics with
conservative religion.>>>>>>>

   Not necessarily. Because many people with conservative religion
are just plain apolitical. And the most agressive and power wielding
conservatives are generally business conservatives. While most of
these are nominally Christian (esp protestant), a minority is
strongly practicant, and many are highly inconsistent in the extent
of their faith as well.

Religion
dominates civil society.  Even good liberals go to church in the
South.  Odds are your politics are going to match your world
view...and if that world view is dominated by conservative religious
doctrines like those of the Southern Baptists then the outcome is
purty obvious.>>>>>>>>>

   However, nearly all my family is Catholic and until very recently
hardly anyone ever voted conservative as long as we've been in this
country.

{Politics.72.15}: Andre Robinson {aardvarx} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:40:24 EDT (16 lines)

>>>Andre, I wouldn't say the South's world view is dominated by
**conservative**   religious doctrines. It's just more prevelant.

Just to clarify.  That's not what I was saying.  "Religion" is
central in the Southern world view.  But, most Protestant
denominations, even in the South, are not extreme.  However, the ones
that ARE, like the Southern Baptist Convention, make up a significant
part of the "religious right."

>>>However, nearly all my family is Catholic and until very recently
hardly anyone ever voted conservative as long as we've been in this
country.

Catholic?  What's that?  We're talking 'bout Christians.  Welcome to
the South.  Christian equals Protestant in these parts.  Outside of a
few places like New Orleans, Catholicism is marginal in the South.

{Politics.72.16}: Roxanna Guilford {jordan} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 21:48:33 EDT (13 lines)

Ok, Andre. We're on the same wavelength. Sorry I misunderstood.

Yep. I met my atheist friends at church. Seriously. (They're Unitarian
Universalists)

Red -
As for catholics, I tended to associate the Catholics I knew with more
liberal social causes, even with the strong antiabortion stance. But
as Andre noted, they aren't a huge force in the South.

(I always appreciated the consistancy of the Catholic position. They
are  - officially - anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. Makes more
sense than the Baptist anti-abortion, pro-death penalty. )

{Politics.72.17}: {redleader} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:03:36 EDT (27 lines)
{name removed by chiles Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:55:17 EST}

   Maybe the "Bible Belt" deserves some of its reputation, but they
DO NOT have a controlling monopoly on Christianity in this country.
Southern Baptists only constitute a small fraction of US Protestants.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

    This will indicate that there are more Catholics than all baptist
groups put together. Southern Baptists should have smaller numbers
than that, because there are other strains of Baptists.

    Catholics are Christians, by any accepted definition. Only wacko
fundamentalists try to deny this. In fact, it is an older form of
Christianity, than Protestantism. Whether you like the Catholic
Church or not, you can't really deny that it is the oldest highly
influential and continuously surviving form of Christianity in the
Western world.

   And since less than 1/3 of all Americans live in the south, it
isn't the universal reality of this country. I don't know where this
idea of "All Presidents must be southerners comes from".

As for catholics, I tended to associate the Catholics I knew with more
liberal social causes, even with the strong antiabortion stance>>>>>

   Actually it is amazing how little influence that has on the
political beliefs of most Catholics both in the US and in more
largely Catholic countries than not.

{Politics.72.18}: Andre Robinson {aardvarx} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:20:06 EDT (28 lines)

Red,

You're preaching to the choir.  I was just relating the general
attitudes towards Catholicism in the South...NOT my personal views.
I know all about the Reformation, Martin Luther, etc.  Even know a
bit of Catholic History...hard not to if you know anything about
European History.

>>>Maybe the "Bible Belt" deserves some of its reputation, but they
DO NOT have a controlling monopoly on Christianity in this country.
Southern Baptists only constitute a small fraction of US Protestants.

Yeah, but they speak with a big voice.  Intensity makes up for
numbers.  They tend to be far more evangelical in nature and less
afraid of crossing church/state boundaries, thus giving them a wider
impact.


>>>And since less than 1/3 of all Americans live in the south, it
isn't the universal reality of this country. I don't know where this
idea of "All Presidents must be southerners comes from".

The unabridged version is:  "All DEMOCRATS who want to be President
need to be Southerners or have a powerful Southerner on the ticket
like LBJ."  That's just the electoral reality for the past 40 years.
The South is so important in presidential elections because the rest
of the map is fairly predictable.  Dems have to swing one or two
Southern states to win it all.

{Politics.72.19}: Roxanna Guilford {jordan} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:33:12 EDT (9 lines)

>   Maybe the "Bible Belt" deserves some of its reputation, but they
DO NOT have a controlling monopoly on Christianity in this country.<

Who said that they did, Red?

I'm not convinced that the stereotype fits, but as Andre said, the
fundamentalist evangelicals speak with a loud voice. (The liberal
evangenicals are busy in the soup kitchens or organizing folks in the
projects)

{Politics.72.20}: {redleader} Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:39:12 EDT (24 lines)
{name removed by chiles Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:55:17 EST}

  I'm not convinced that the stereotype fits, but as Andre said, the
fundamentalist evangelicals speak with a loud voice. (The liberal
evangenicals are busy in the soup kitchens or organizing folks in the
projects)>>>>>>

  Do they? Or does the powerful business conservative end of the
Republican party just use them to paint a certain picture that they
want?

That's just the electoral reality for the past 40 years.
The South is so important in presidential elections because the rest
of the map is fairly predictable.  Dems have to swing one or two
Southern states to win it all>>>>>

  Times change. And there is a first time for everything.

I'm not convinced that the stereotype fits, but as Andre said, the
fundamentalist evangelicals speak with a loud voice. (The liberal
evangenicals are busy in the soup kitchens or organizing folks in the
projects)>>>>>

  How about the liberal evangelicals outnumber the fundamentalists,
(who don't have that high a turnout), and could outvote them if the
will was there.

{Politics.72.21}: Tom Weir {tomweir} Wed, 15 Oct 2003 03:05:46 EDT (HTML)

{Politics.72.22}: {redleader} Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:15:02 EDT (13 lines)
{name removed by chiles Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:55:17 EST}

The Irish American branch of my family span the political divide,
generally Democrat, some unswervingly so, some switched for Reagan,
some switched for Bush too being pissed at Clinton's lies and the
degraded nature of politics after Starr. The younger generation (30+)
voted Democrat and Green with one or two Republicans. While spanning
a range of opinion on the merits of the issue, they all have no
problem regarding abortion as a personal decision, it wouldn't enter
their minds as a voting issue.>>>>>

   My Irish American family is almost exclusively liberal, or was
until very very recently. Among the older people, it was the more
religious who were actually more liberal and less likely to be
racist.  Among the younger people their is no meaningful correlation.

{Politics.72.23}: Suzanne Griffith {sggriffith} Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:01:55 EDT (10 lines)

I don't think religion is much of a factor on the coasts. We have
religious right people (I have a family of them next door), but
they're not a huge influence in politics.

If you look at the map of the continental US showing Gore and Bush
votes in 2000, you'll see blue on the coasts and New Mexico (for
Gore), and the whole big middle of the country red, along with the
South.

It's those religious Reds us liberals have to worry about ;-)

{Politics.72.24}: {redleader} Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:33:05 EDT (9 lines)
{name removed by chiles Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:55:17 EST}

   I know a lot of religious people. But I haven't seen that many who
expressed any affiliation with the religious right.

   And having grown up in Arizona at least, I've seen that not very
many conservatives there were particularly religious. In fact, the
most hard core rightists often had a rather cynical view of religion.
For example if you say you believed in anything, they immediately
characterized it as, "You are just too afraid of hell to say anything
different.". Even if that wasn't the case at all.

{Politics.72.25}: Andre Robinson {aardvarx} Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:48:03 EDT (14 lines)

God put Bush in charge, says the general hunting bin Laden
By David Rennie

"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2003/10/17/wboyk17.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/17/ixnewstop.htm
l&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=15391"

"Gen Boykin has repeatedly told Christian groups and prayer meetings
that President George W Bush was chosen by God to lead the global
fight against Satan.

He told one gathering: 'Why is this man in the White House? The
majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House
because God put him there for a time such as this.'"

This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.