Posted on 10/11/2010 10:32:04 AM PDT by pgyanke
The problem is the number of faithful Catholics who sit the pew day after day and week after week listening to a liberal-leaning cleric spouting social drivel. My purpose is to get the word out and show this social ideology for the folly it is.
LOL, can you break down any category for purity by your standards?
We can ask people if they are a member of the Catholic church, or if they identify with one of the Protestant churches, or if they don’t identify with any church, or if they are Jewish, but it is pretty hard for the poll taker to conduct an inquisition into the person’s purity.
Martha Coakley, the Dem candidate to replace Teddy Kennedy here in Mass., so much as said that believing Catholics should not be in the health care profession.
Dismissing the political facts as a conspiracy, and trying to keep the truth of the Catholic vote from conservative Catholics, only means that we will never be able to change the Catholic vote to where it should be.
Your ‘LOL’ is unwarranted. Nor is your personal attack.
It is not a stretch for a pollster to ask if the person is a church-going Catholic or a non-church going Catholic. It is quite common for pollsters to do so.
Nor is it fair to include apathetics in with fervent Catholics. And this point is relevant to the OP’s message as to the effectiveness of the OP’s message.
Since you are unable to break down the polls into practicing and non-practicing Catholics, your previous posts are irrelevant.
The OP has chosen to focus on practicing Catholics who have a liberal pastor. This seems to be a more constructive direction for this thread.
There was no personal attack, you just showed your sensitivity.
The Protestant numbers include the majority of blacks, lesbian ministers, Episcopalians, “apathetic” Protestants, the church of Reverend Wright, one third of the Hispanic vote, everyone.
Catholic only means people that identify with their one Catholic church, whether they have drifted away some in practice or not.
The larger issue is what do we do about the Catholic vote supporting Democrats, and you seem uninterested in that.
Since it seems that your intent is to hijack this thread with irrelevant voting data and provocations, I’m going to ignore you like Missouri is ignoring democrat senators.
To: kidd
1) Point of correction - Bush captured more of the total Catholic vote than the minimally-Catholic John Kerry
The writer is correct, the Catholics voted for Al Gore in 2000, after voting for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, in 2004 Bush did win the Catholic vote with 52%, and then in 2008, Obama won his 54% of the Catholic vote.
Four of the only six times that the Republicans have won the Catholic vote in history, was to reelect a president that was already there, a fifth time was electing Reagan's veep, before going to Clinton in the next election.
16 posted on Monday, October 11, 2010 10:57:57 AM by ansel12
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.