Posted on 02/03/2005 1:23:26 PM PST by metalmanx2j
John Kerry (news - web sites) managed the best showing in decades for a Democratic presidential candidate among mainline Protestants, but his failure to capture a majority of Roman Catholics — people of his own faith — gave President Bush (news - web sites) an important advantage in last November's election, according to a new survey.
Bush's showing also improved dramatically among Hispanic Protestants, 63 percent of whom supported him in 2004 — a 31 percent gain over 2000.
The postelection phone survey of 2,730 people, conducted by the University of Akron and sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, is a close study of voting behavior and religious faith.
Among non-Hispanic Catholics, Kerry won the support of 69 percent with those with liberal or "modernist" beliefs, while 72 percent of "traditionalists" favored Bush. But importantly, 55 percent of the key swing group of "centrists" picked Bush over Kerry, who was criticized by bishops for his support of abortion rights.
The upshot: A one-time Democratic mainstay, Catholics gave Bush an overall edge of 53 percent to Kerry's 47 percent.
Overall, the mainline Protestant vote split evenly, the poll found, with a Bush decline of 10 percent from 2000 and the best showing for a Democrat since the 1960s; results before then are unclear.
Divisions between religious liberals and conservatives were even more stark than they were four years ago.
"The American religious landscape was strongly polarized in the 2004 presidential vote and more so than in 2000," concluded the team of four political scientists, led by Akron's John C. Green.
The scholars said Bush's religious constituency included Christian traditionalists in all categories, Mormons, Hispanic Protestants and religious centrists among Catholics and mainline Protestants.
Kerry's support came from black Protestants and secular Americans, followed by "modernists" among Catholics and mainline Protestants. Jews and Latino Catholics remained loyally Democratic.
Other questions focused on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, which were thought to be crucial when Nov. 2 exit polls showed "moral values" were more important to voters than Iraq (news - web sites), terrorism or the economy.
The study concluded that "social issues were quite important to the Bush vote, but a secondary factor for the electorate as a whole."
The quadrennial Akron surveys are notable for careful interviewing on respondents' precise religious affiliations and religious views and activities. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
I think people are becoming more attuned to the question of abortion. Little Connor's death brought a lot of attention to this issue.
Very interesting. I wouldn't have guessed Kerry did that well among Protestants.
patent
Overall, the mainline Protestant vote split evenly, the poll found, with a Bush decline of 10 percent from 2000 and the best showing for a Democrat since the 1960s; results before then are unclear.
once Abortion is made illegal there wouldn't be much cause for a pro-life, Reagan Democrat Catholic to cross over and vote Republican.
You'll like the info in this thread!
The Protestant churches that endorse homosexual pastors or a feel good approach to Christianity would have been where he drew his support. Many mainline Protestants have been leaving in favor of non denominational churches as result.
This does prove as I thought before the election. the Faith block is where the growth is for the Party. Those attuned to their Faith are far more likely to support Republicans, recognizing the state of the democrat Party. The spinsters misrepresented the "values" exit polling. Faith and values are a fundamental aspect of who someone is. Therefore they view all issue including the war through that lens. They've been trying to separate religion from the issues, that isn't how it works in a believer's life.
It is sad to watch so many voters voting on some basis, other than qualification. Religion, race, sex, looks, you name it. Sad decision making.
If you take out all the Protestants In Name Only and members of the liberal denominations, Kerry probably did very poorly.
God Bless the Ohio Catholics!
I think you'll find a certain bit of information in this article useful.
Well, I was one of the votes.
Why? There isn't a qualification in the Constitution that excludes a certain characteristic as an incentive to prefer one candidate over another. It would be impossible to separate the human tendency to be drawn to someone for more than qualification, just as it is impossible to separate bias from reporting. It isn't possible.
I do think qualifications should dominate, but the character of a candidate and how they view the world is defined by who they are. Faith, gender, resistance on race etc... It would be foolish not to factor the sum that evolves the character of the candidate into your decision of whether they deserve office. Further, I have only become more conservative across the board because of my faith. I do not mean only socially but economically as well as my opinion of world affairs. It gives me boundaries morally and it is through this prism I view the rights of my government vs my own divined rights.
Well sure, but it you take out all the CINOs and members of liberal Catholic Churches, the democrats have done very poorly in Catholic circles for years. Faithful Catholics have been voting Republican for several elections now. (Of course, that never stops some Protestants on this forum from squawking about how Catholics supposedly all support Democrats, etc.)Very interesting. I wouldn't have guessed Kerry did that well among Protestants.If you take out all the Protestants In Name Only and members of the liberal denominations, Kerry probably did very poorly.
The fact of the matter is both Catholics and Protestants have PINOs and CINOs. The interesting thing here is that, for the first time to my knowledge, Catholics as a group were more Republican than Protestants. I don’t think that’s ever happened before. It has very interesting implications for future elections. Electoral strategies will be shifting a bit to deal with this.
I think it also says something about how the Churches are changing internally right now, but that is better measured elsewhere.
patent
It is sad to watch so many voters voting on some basis, other than qualification. Religion, race, sex, looks, you name it. Sad decision making.This is an ignorant comment. My religious beliefs invariably inform my view of a man’s qualifications. It is no different than for those who are atheistic, whatever. Their moral and/or theological views invariably impact how they select office holders.
I would agree with you that race, sex, and looks are not appropriate. However, to compare choosing a candidate based on his having a better haircut, with my choosing a candidate because his pro-life stance matches my (faith taught) view that all human life has worth, is asinine.
Keep in mind, that the polls prove that voters didn’t vote just based on a shell of religion, e.g., the Catholics didn’t vote for Kerry simply because he is a Catholic, but rather they chose a politician whose political stances fit with their beliefs: religious, social, moral, and economic. In that light, religious views are entirely appropriate in politics, and in some cases are inseperable.
patent
Agreed.
I've noticed Catholic priests have been speaking up far more, and I would assume this is rightfully having a positive effect on their congregations. Priests, pastors, ministers, etcc..have a duty to their congregations and when they fail their congregations suffer. There seems to have been a reversel in the Catholic Church of late.
Meanwhile some traditional protestant denominations have been liberalizing their accepted doctrine and members and this has the fact of harming their congregants, or chasing them away.
I was formally a protestant but attend a non denominational Church now. It doesn't matter what church one attends, when they begin to deviate from traditional interpretation of scripture it leads to new allignments elsewhere. Most genuine Christians are not going to put up with a PC religion.
>>>>There seems to have been a reversel in the Catholic Church of late.
I think so, and I sure pray it keeps going.
>>>>>Most genuine Christians are not going to put up with a PC religion.
I think that's very true. When they get PC, it tends to obscure any real faith that's there, and if you don't see the faith, what is the point in staying at that Church?
People seek truth, not platitudes.
God bless,
patent
This is an ignorant comment.
======
No it isn't. But you can call it what you want, that is your opinion. I do not feel that any President should be selected based on religous beliefs, and that is my opinion. Competence, experience, credibility, honesty, support of the Constitution and founding principles of this country, and commitment to the safety and well being of the people of this country rank fare above all else.
We all have our opinions -- and I promise not to call your opinion "ignorant".
Unfortunately here in CT, the priests are for the most part liberal as he!!
I do not feel that any President should be selected based on religous beliefs, and that is my opinion. Competence, experience, credibility, honesty, support of the Constitution and founding principles of this country, and commitment to the safety and well being of the people of this country rank fare above all else.Even under your terms, which I would find extremely limiting, I still think you are off base. Many portions of the Constitution and our founding principles were based on religious belief. Perhaps you'd like us to strike parts of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--Those are, are they not, parts of our founding principles? The belief that our Creator gave us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? All these things for me are defined by my religion. I’m sure you are well aware that many of our founding fathers were deeply religious, and in their actions in establishing this country they turned to those beliefs. We should not do as they did?And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Take a look at these rights our Declaration says our Creator gave us. What is life? For me its defined by my religion, for instance in abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc. If I can’t apply my religious beliefs on life, am I therefore not allowed to vote on abortion issues? Its inseparable from my religion.
What is liberty? Freedom of religion certainly applies, and thus even this is inseparable from religion. Should I vote for a man who, using your terms, would competently, honestly and credibly promise to prohibit my religion?
What is the pursuit of happiness? For me happiness is to know God, to love God, to serve God. Again, defined by my religion.
Moreover, you yourself mention several values. Honesty, well-being, etc. Most of us have our views on these issues shaped by our religious values, or if there is a lack thereof, by our personal philosophies. So again, even on your terms, if you encourage me to chose a leader based on my views of honesty, you are asking me to bring religion into it. For me, they are inseparable. I value honesty because of my religion. I have particular views about what is and is not honesty because of my religion.
It is a distinctly modern notion that religion has no place in politics. It is designed by liberals and communists to drive religious people out of politics and into the closet, where they can be safely ruled by their “betters.” No thanks. I’ll stick with the true Constitutional principles, and true founding principles, and I’ll continue to have my vote informed by my religious beliefs.
patent
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.