Posted on 10/26/2007 5:58:24 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
The Human Life Foundation's Defender of Life annual award dinner this month was an eye opener. The award recipient was Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, and in the brochure noting his accomplishments I learned that the congressman is co-chairman of the bipartisan pro-life caucus. Bipartisan? In amazement, I asked him if there really are pro-life Democrats in Congress. "Oh yes," he assured me, "about 30." He went on to name one, but I'm not going to repeat the name because he and the others probably get enough grief from other congressional Democrats.
A senior editor for National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru, introduced Mr. Smith. In his book, "The Party of Death" Mr. Ponnuru makes no bones about which political party deserves that description. I'm not sure whether it's wise to use such hyperbolic language about the nation's majority political group, and yet maybe strong words are overdue in describing the culture that's being promoted today. Abortion on demand, embryonic destruction, euthanasia, and animal rights now displace human rights. It wasn't the GOP pulling the plug on the disabled Terry Schiavo.
My sisters are Democrats, and one refuses to vote for any Republican. They are also Catholics, and Catholics have traditionally voted Democrat. I'm still amazed by how loyal Catholics are to a political machine that champions causes directly opposed to church teaching. Although I have never been a registered Democrat, I've voted for and campaigned for that party because it once fought for basic human rights. That is no longer the case. Senator Miller, who formerly represented Georgia in the upper chamber, had it exactly right when he wrote his book, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat." He frequently says that he did not leave the Democratic Party. It left him.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
You have hit the nail on the head. There is absolutely no difference. One is just as dilusional as the other. RATS hope to deceive all the gullible voters they can. They depend on the ignorant to keep them in office.
Why do Protestant, evangelical Christians vote Republican? Because “evangelical” = “religious right” = “Republican”
Both Protestants and Catholics have very equivalent proportions of Democrats and Republicans. “Evangelical Protestants” and “daily communicant Catholics” both have equivalent proportions of Democrats and Republicans. The problem is that merely nominally Christian Catholics still identify as Catholics, but merely nominally Christian Protestants don’t identify themselves as “evangelical.”
Actually, the partisan parity between Catholics and Protestants is even more remarkable when one considers geography. Catholics in blue states are far more politically conservative than Protestants in blue states; it’s just that Catholics are far more likely to live in states which are dominated by old-growth cities, which are prepondrously liberal.
The deciding factor is much more religiosity than religion.
Thank you, and God Bless!
Jay
Heck, if I'd have known you wanted to hear that, I'd have said it. My wife's a big lib but a better Catholic than I, but she hasn't voted for a Deathocrat since Bob Casey, Sr.
sorry. I don’t know what happened to the italicization.
>> Nice that someone finally came out and said it. I appreciate the honesty, at least. <<
Oh, it’s entirely true, which makes the partisan parity of Catholics and Protestants all the more impressive. It’s alot easier for a white Protestant to become conservative, growing up in deeply red states, with no history of political alienation. Catholics got involved in unions and government because that’s where they could get an even footing; they arguably had it worse than blacks a century ago.
The old, Northern Democratic Party had a Catholic backbone. But the majority of Catholics have had their Zell Miller moments, and the “Reagan Democrat” was typically a Catholic. They’re swing voters now: They voted for Republican in ‘02 and ‘04, but they aren’t solid.
I have also noticed that these are not the most observant about their faith.
As to the current worship of money that is very big in the “free market” crowd, most devout non Catholics are not that thrilled about that either. One of these days, the topic of usury really needs to be addressed here on FR.
There it is. My wife has a sign, “Help Wanted, No Irish Need Apply.”
“What is odd to me is that around here, many Catholic place liberal economic actions before being pro life. So much that they will do back flips to rationalize voting for a pro infanticide candidate.”
I know folks like that.
These are folks who REALLY, REALLY BELIEVE that social justice comes by way of higher taxes, affirmative action, and and the welfare state. These are folks who take the Sermon on the Mount to heart, and believe that the best way of achieving what Jesus taught us to do is through government action.
I disagree with them.
But they are what they are.
As well, Republicans are also often anti-labor union. Catholic social teaching is explicit about the right of workers to organize in trade and labor unions.
“As to the current worship of money that is very big in the ‘free market’ crowd, most devout non Catholics are not that thrilled about that either. One of these days, the topic of usury really needs to be addressed here on FR.”
I’m not really willing to characterize how non-Catholics, devout or otherwise, think or feel, except to say that I’ve noticed that many seeming devout non-Catholics here at FR seem to believe almost as if capitalism, etc., is part of Divine Law.
sitetest
Thanks!
Actually, its pretty simple.
Irish Catholics are overwhelmingly Democrat, and they make up a huge portion of the Church. And they’ve been Democrats since the 1820’s when the Whigs and Know-Nothings, who later became the Republicans, were bitterly against them.
Catholics of Italian, German, Polish, Ukranian, Lithuanian, Lebanese, and French heritage are no more inclined to vote Democrat than any other group of white Americans, generally going about 5 to 3 for the Republicans. This split is readily apparent when you look at the voting habits of ethnic neighborhoods and suburbs in the northeast, Chicago, etc., or if you look at the surnames of Catholic candidates from the two parties.
The same split is apparent among the Orthodox, with Greeks and Serbs leaning Democrat, while Arabs and Ukranians and American converts lean Republican.
The Democrat party is a simple coalition of the overwhelming majority of Irish Catholics, Jews, Blacks, irreligious/amoral Americans, and self-loathing guilty feeling rich WASP’s.
I can only theorize the Irish Catholics remain there, and vote for pro-abortion/pro-homosexual politicians because they are really good at holding grudges.
I'm not sure about that. My understanding is that Catholic teaching(until they discontinued Catholic teaching) has always been that taxation above 10% was immoral.
“More puzzling why Jews back democrats.”
Not when you break it down by denomination. Reform Judaism is the Unitarianism of Jews...very liberal, with no hard moral principles. The Ten Commandments become more like The Ten Helpful Hints For Better Living. The very notion that you can “reform” the word of God is a big clue here. If Episcopalians are cafeteria Christians, Reform temples are cafeteria Jews. And Reform is the biggest Jewish denomination in America. Advantage, Democrats.
Gay? Screw Leviticus, lets have that “commitment ceremony”!
The more conservative a Jew is in his faith, the more conservative he’s likely to be in his politics.
It’s simple, many North American Catholics are “cafeteria Catholics” who don’t really accept the Church’s teachings when it conflicts with their “American middle-class” values. How they still think they are Catholic is beyond me, but there they are.
The answer is easy: some people go to church for the wrong reason.
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.