[Mike Fieschko]

Rest of article covers motivating factors, a little history of Massachusetts homosexual marriage selection, Michigan GOP abandonment of bill banning homosexual marriage, Karl Rove or Tim Goeglein, head of the White House Office of Public Liaison meeting with Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, psychologist James C. Dobson or others from the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, and Charles Colson.

[pissant]

I've never been as proud of my usually dem-leaning fellow Catholics as today.

[Psalm 73]

"....79% Evangelical....to Bush"

Only 79%? - That means when we look around us at church 2 out of 10 supported Kerry - ouch.
We'll work on that for '06.

[WoodstockCat]

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, advised in mailings to 45,000 churches that their clergy should avoid endorsing a candidate by name from the pulpit. Other than that, "we told them they were absolutely free and should encourage their people to vote their convictions," he said.

Here is the key difference in how liberals have approached the "values" issue.

Bush didn't go into pulpits weekends before election day and preach about his values, he lived them.

Evangelicals don't want a politician in the pulpit, we wants preachers who draw the lines on good and evil starkly and biblically.

[NYer]

Catholic Ping - please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Coldwater Creek]

James Dobson is Focus on the Family. A great man, full of wisdom for raising children.

[truecons]

52% of Catholic voters went to Bush? Isn't that huge? Does anyone have the numbers for Catholics for past several elections?

Might lead one to ask why. One theory might be Kerry's mom's buzzword: integrity. It's one thing for a politician to take a position that a voter disagrees with, but the voter can still support him if the balance of their positions is sound.

But when John Kerry asked Catholic, presumably largely democrat, voters to believe that he was pro-life, that may have pushed their credibility (gullibility?) to the limit.

I mean, come on...John Kerry pro-life? I would sooner expect to see Hitler in a yarmulke.

[Salvation]

PRESIDENT BUSH WON CATHOLIC VOTE

Kerry Loses His Faith

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]

[Salvation]

Election 2004: Vote divided on Issues of Religion

[remember]

As the presidential race was heating up in June and July, a pair of leaked documents showed that the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign was urging Christian supporters to turn over their church directories and was seeking to identify "friendly congregations" in battleground states.

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.

[Zack Nguyen]

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.