Election 2004: Vote divided on Issues of Religion
Posted on 11/08/2004 9:22:16 AM PST by Mike Fieschko
Because of the late breaking DUI story.
BTW, the numbers do NOT work for the evangelicals; the last numbers showed that the evangelicals turned out in the same numbers are before:
Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.
It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.
Bush's votes came from voters across the board, not just the evangelicals. He was up 5 to 7 percents in every single category.
No, I do; I just know that Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center says "there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.
"It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues."
Blame the Republicans? No, This Time It's the Christians
Faith Factor Proves Key in U.S. Elections
Election Reinforces U.S. Religious Divide
People of Faith Deliver the Election
Evangelicals Say They Led Charge For the GOP [GOTV effort = 79% Evangelical, 52% Catholic to Bush]
Election 2004: Vote divided on Issues of Religion
Bush's percentage of the vote among most subgroups was generally proportional to the overall three-percentage point increase he received.
Take away pro-life Catholic votes and Kerry would be the president now. Something to think about.
Those revelations produced a flurry of accusations that the Bush campaign was leading churches to violate laws against partisan activities by tax-exempt organizations, and even some of the White House's closest religious allies said the campaign had gone too far.
The Bush administration may or may not have stepped over the line in this case. What is indisputable, however, is that many people do vote on political issues based on religious beliefs.
If someone makes a reasoned argument for one side or the other of a political issue, that argument is open for analysis and critique by all, including the media. However, when that argument is based on religious belief, it usually seems to receive kid glove treatment. For example, if a candidate argues against increasing the federal debt on the grounds that it will hurt the economy, the media will not hesitate to ask for the rationale for that contention and to critique it. However, if a candidate should make the same argument and say that it is based on sacred writings of their religion which forbids such debt, the media will usually just mention that fact and leave it at that.
In fact, as soon as a religious belief are used to justify a political decision that will affect others, I believe that belief should be open to as much scrutiny as any other argument. If such a decision is based on the sacred writings of one's religion, it's valid to ask what evidence that person has that the writings are in fact sacred and that they are interpreting those writings correctly.
I have long been surprised how some people who claim great humility and fallibility can nevertheless claim to have found the final truth when numerous great spiritual men and women have struggled their entire lives to catch some larger glimpse of that truth. I have no problem with religious beliefs that affect only the life of the believer. Many, if not most, people facing great adversity find a great comfort in the existence of a divine or higher power that is watching over things if not directly intervening. I have no evidence to the contrary nor would I wish it to be so. But when someone formulates public policy based on religious beliefs, those religious beliefs become as open to public debate as any secular beliefs.
What's interesting is that so much of that happened outside of the suggestion or control of BC '04 and the Republican Party. The Bush campaign was really blessed, because if so many people hadn't taken it on their own initiative to turn out the vote, Kerry might have won.
Contrast this volunteer-driven, ministry-driven, grassroot turnout effort with the Democrat operation. This was extremely expensive, driven by explicitly political 527's, labor unions, and high priced entertainers.
Bush lost the Catholic vote in 2000, so this is a major, major shift. It's been trending that way for years, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.