True, but Roman Catholics don’t influence elections/Republican politics. If that were the case Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey would be fountains of religious activism and Republican strongholds.
>> True, but Roman Catholics don’t influence elections/Republican politics. If that were the case Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey would be fountains of religious activism and Republican strongholds. <<
The Catholics in those states vote far more conservatively than the Protestants do.
>> True, but Roman Catholics don’t influence elections/Republican politics. If that were the case Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey would be fountains of religious activism and Republican strongholds. <<
... and please don’t associate religiosity with Republicanism. As late as the 90s, the Democratic party in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania was heavily influenced by Catholic prolifers.
For instance, pro-abortion Republican Gov. Weld beat pro-life Democrat nominee Silber in Massachusetts in 1994; Lieberman ran as a pro-lifer when he defeated Republican pro-abortion Senator Lowell Weicker. In 1992, Pennsylvania Democrat Gov. Casey was the strongest pro-lifer in the nation. When the Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island Democratic parties insisted on following the nation pro-abortion lead, they quit being able to elect Democrats to the governorship until the Bush-led immigration debacles led to Democratic surges across the country.