Religion and the Parties

• "Reform" is Protestant idea, "Catholics are generally on the side of the 'the regulars.'"

• Clinton's focus on "bread and butter" issues appeals to Catholics' concern with social injustice.

• Catholics associate age with leadership (in other words, they believe that Obama's too young).

• And one that he put out in very, very gentle terms: Catholics might be uncomfortable with electing a black president. (On this point, one questioner asked if Protestants' belief that they have "something to make up for" -- racial reconciliation over slavery -- might make them more sympathetic to Obama's candidacy.

The first three are tripe.

The last one, "is it racism?" may be age-related. But if you're going to do rather silly things like attribute current attitudes to the historical bases of Christian sects, you would note that evangelicism has its roots in the temperance and the abolitionist movements.

John Brown's body and all.

It would be helpful to see a regression analysis of these results to see whether "Catholic" is operating as a proxy for "age," to see whether the catholic population is simply older.

AMC, can you ask about the age distribution of the two populations?

Reform is a protestant idea. That's the best one I've heard in a while. Did Pew do some exit polling at Wittenberg Castle or something?

Cookie, sure it's a protestant idea, but only when a new denomination is created, then that denomination must never change.

I'm kind of upset at the idea that people would vote for the black candidate because of guilt for slavery. Can't it just be that we think he's the best candidate?

Reform makes me think of the (early twentieth century) Progressives. Evangelicism is hardly Progressive. Evangelicals come from a more Populist tradition - read Creech's excellent "Righteous Indignation."

I would actually agrue that Catholics reflect more of the reform tradition, while Protestants (generally) reflect a more radical tradition (Presbyterians and the American Revolution, Baptists and the Anti-Establishmentian Church Movement, Northern Methodists and Abolition, etc.)

Also - I really don't get "Clinton's focus on "bread and butter" issues appeals to Catholics' concern with social injustice."

Um, Catholics are more concerned with social justice then Protestants? What???

LOL Cookie.

ZSMorgan--It's just a reporter making up stupid stuff. Don't pay any attention. These people believe in group minds and shared consciousness.

AMC, you're in Key West. Bag the conference and go have fun.

Great to have Gerson's thoughts on religion.
http://tinyurl.com/5dtw4t

Why in the world would anyone care what his thoughts are on the Democratic primary?

The claim would be D_L that Catholics worry about the poor more than the megachurch protestants do.

It's all silliness.

Paul--

I wanna know why he's on the CFR.

"Reform is a protestant idea. That's the best one I've heard in a while. Did Pew do some exit polling at Wittenberg Castle or something?"

Well, in the historical sense, maybe. I mean, what else is a Protestant and the Reformation but people protesting the Catholic Church seeking reforms? How that translates into today's political discourse? Well, I will say that the Southern Strategy worked among those God-fearing Southern Baptists who were tired of Yankees telling them how to live (or so the success of the strategy suggests).

"I'm kind of upset at the idea that people would vote for the black candidate because of guilt for slavery. Can't it just be that we think he's the best candidate?"

But really, isn't this the same annoying idea that has been proposed numerous times during this campaign? Most recently, Geraldine Ferraro forwarded that line of thought. Apparently in this country, a black candidate can never just be perceived as the most qualified - his/her ascension has to be tied into something with skin pigmentation and historical injustices. So, when it keeps coming up, all it does is cause me to roll my eyes even more and grow completely and totally weary of this entire farcical process.

ZSMorgan--It's just a reporter making up stupid stuff. Don't pay any attention. These people believe in group minds and shared consciousness. Posted by jayackroyd Author Profile Page | May 5, 2008 12:49 PM

I KNEW IT!!! You all are a bunch of neo-Evangelicals Protestant radicals, who have one mind and consciousness like a fungus growing out from one main branch.

Yes, the fungus is still growing in Swampland.

May I ask a dumb question? What qualifies either one of these two to weigh in on the topic?
Nothing in the linked bios suggest expertise.
Connected middle aged white guys? What a fresh perspective.

may i ask a question? who gives a sh*& about this anyway and why?? talking snakes, floating bodily up to heaven, surviving in the belly of a whale, parting a sea like the hair on your head, a boat filled with all the animals, etc...seriously people get a clue. create fear then control...the oldest (and obviously still effective) means of ruling...aghhh makes my head spin (figuritively, i know all you religious robots have trouble with symbolism)

What a bunch of c**p. Agree with Florida - blow off this circle-jerk and go have some fun.

Here's what you do - go to "Blue Heaven" the well-known Jamaican joint in the old "Bahamas-town". There will be a line. Ignore it, because you're going to cross the street and eat at the dive with a few tables on the porch. Enjoy a Red Stripe and the best conch fritters and jerked chicken you've ever had.

Allow me to condense;

Catholics, as eager believers in anything they are told, trust that Hillary Clinton is telling them the truth and that Blackie Barack must be a liar.

This proves Hitchens' point that religion is societally destructive!

Tell a dummy they are a dummy and they won't believe you.

There comes a point where demographic analysis becomes almost as reliable as astrology.

This speculation about 'tendencies' among adherents to one particular faith or another strike me as being after the fact speculations unsupported by anything but plausable conjecture. It reminds me of Astrology.

We might as well specualte that Catholics are more receptive to matriarchal authority and that Protestants prefer people who currently live in colder climates.

In the last several months, I would bet that several thousands of people have ceased to consider themselves catholics. I wonder if they switch political allegiance at the same time.

If protestants are about reform, why is John Ashcroft not allowed to dance?

The reports online:

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf

Pretty big pdf.

Catholics are stable across age groups at about a quarter of the population.

On the silly obeys authority claim, it's pretty clear that while American Catholics are part of a formal hierarchy, their birth control practices would indicate that they don't take orders from it. OTOH, the evangelicals are frequently intolerant of straying from the church teaching.

I'm sticking with "silly," Dirks.

The interesting development in this election is the stampede of young people away from the republican party and their forked up values.

Key West (er, the Conch Republic) is totally cool! Be sure to check out the Truman White House, sunset on the pier and some private botanical garden who's name I forget!

Gerson is an "Anglican" who pulled his church out of the worldwide Anglican union because of blatant homophobia, and it re-aligned with an African version, whose former leader actually affected policy by advocating relentlessly anti-gay discriminatory actions. With such bigotry and intolerance, how he calls himself a "Christian" is completely baffling. Reverend Wright just rants, but has no policy impact - Gerson's spiritual leader actually dramatically affects people's lives with his bigotry.

But Gerson's views are welcome here - AMC doesn't even bother to mention his former church leader nor the bigotry. Interesting double standard...

Oh, and red congressional seats turning blue.

Tsunami. I'm telling you. Think tsunami.

Key West (er, the Conch Republic) is totally cool! Be sure to check out the Truman White House, sunset on the pier and some private botanical garden who's name I forget!

Gerson is an "Anglican" who pulled his church out of the worldwide Anglican union because of blatant homophobia, and it re-aligned with an African version, whose former leader actually affected policy by advocating relentlessly anti-gay discriminatory actions. With such bigotry and intolerance, how he calls himself a "Christian" is completely baffling. Reverend Wright just rants, but has no policy impact - Gerson's spiritual leader actually dramatically affects people's lives with his bigotry.

But Gerson's views are welcome here - AMC doesn't even bother to mention his former church leader nor the bigotry. Interesting double standard...

Moreover (and sorry for the double post), as a Presbyterian, I anxiously await the surveys of my denomination and what we feel about things. We're Protestants - don't we deserve some coverage?? By the way, we think that people should "love one another;" not judge others; do good works for the meek and needy, and we follow the teachings of someone referred to as the Prince of Peace.

Gerson's wacko, warmongering, judgmental, bigoted, uncaring "religion" to the contrary notwithstanding.

we think that people should "love one another;" not judge others; do good works for the meek and needy, and we follow the teachings of someone referred to as the Prince of Peace.

It would appear that some Evangelicals have noticed.....

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gIMD30g1mDuBXJyCdwZrew3j5RtQD90DUDU80

http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/05/05/evangelical-manifesto-calls-for-reform/

It's kinda hard to care about this stuff. First off, Paul-no not that one is right-- why the heck are these two dudes worth listening to?

Plus, it's always tempting to draw some grand lesson from the most recent data. But there's no actual reason, beyond the alluring joys of armchair psychology, to believe that this data point is anything more than a quirk.

Sorry I didn't get into more detail about the panelists. There is actually very little free time, or time to post... We just had a precious hour off and I confess all I did was sit in the sun and read some Travis McGee.

The next panel is about the "persistence of belief," which offers fewer chances for a specifically political post. Unless he's going to talk about people who think we're winning in Iraq.

Chris and I did walk down Duval St. last night and, hey, if anyone needs an obscene t-shirt, I know where you can get one!

Oh, and Jayack: Gerson -- and others -- have talked a fair amount about evangelism's roots in the abolition and temperance movements. And, as I'm sure you know, the suffragist movement also benefited from evangelical support. I'm just giving notes here, not trying to transcribe the entire discussion, though I'll try to clarify as asked. I just had assumed people might be interested in the ideas enough that waiting for a full conference report would be an unnecessarily delay.

And as for the protestant/racial reconciliation angle, for what it's worth, it was not "just a reporter making up stupid stuff." At least to the extent that Gerson -- who, rather than Galston, is the one who responded to that question -- is not a reporter. He might have been making it up... though, as you yourself point out, there is a tradition of abolitionism and racial outreach in the protestant church that is less obvious than in the Catholic tradtion.

OT - Howie Kurtz on his web chat today answering a question about the relevence of Obama's wearing (or not) a flag pin.

"Howard Kurtz: I don't question Obama's patriotism, and most of my colleagues don't, either."

Good to know "most" of his colleagues don't question the patriotism of a major party's likely nominee.

AMC - that last sentence is insulting. Please do not lump all Protestants in with the bigots of Gerson's ilk. Presbyterians were abolitionists - the entire Northern Church split on the issue in the 1860's. Presbyterians embaraced modernism - the Orthodox Presbys and the Bible Presbys split in the 1930's on that very issue. Presbyterians were at Selma and opposed Jim Crow. Presbyterians ordain women and gays - the PCA split on these very issues in the 1970's.

To lump Presbyterians in with the "Protestant church" (whatever that is) is ahistorical and ignores virtually every aspect of Presbyterian history. Francis Schaeffer, the pre-Dobson intellectual avatar of the anti-abortion movement, was an Orthodox, then Bible, then Reformed, then PCA, Presbyterian. Not the same as PCUSA. Not at all.

To lump Gerson's wacko anti-gay "religion" in with mine, merely because we are both "Protestant" is non-factual, insulting and ahistorical. Bleah....

I just came back from a weekend spent with about 100 of my catholic cousins, about 75% of whom voted for Bush. NOT ONE is supporting Clinton. They are ALL without exception, Obama supporters.

I almost had a heart attack from the shock. These are people that voted for Bill Clinton the second time, and some the first time, but pretty evenly split between Clinton and Bush in 1992. They grudgingly voted for Hillary for Senator, or stayed home, but generally voted for her the second time as Senator.

Now, they can't stand her. One of my Bush loving in law relatives actually donated $50 to Barack Obama. This person is studying for his master'sin divinity.

I don't think the folk you are talking to about the catholic vote have any real sense of what is going on on the ground. For example, I talk to about 30-40 priest per week as part of my volunteer work, and they are all supporting Obama.

Somewhere, you folks are missing what's happening in the Catholic community and it's not translating in the polling you are showing here. There's something wrong in how you are asking the questions, or more specifically, exactly what question(s) you are asking. I say this because the Long Island Catholic vote is very powerful and a good indicator of how the rest of the national Catholic vote is looking.

As I said, I was utterly shocked by the lack of support of Clinton, and the enthusiastic support of Obama. Oh, and I should also mention that my demographic is a crosssection of white and latino, with some AA in there. Mostly white RC/Irish/Italian/Hispanic.

It was the reporter who I said was "making stuff up." I don't have a problem with people doing these surveys. The problem is when they impute the reasons for groups of people doing what they do, with no evidence, at all.

I honestly don't think the historical abolitionist involvement of the 19th century evangelical movement affects whether Joe SplinterSchism votes.

"Howard Kurtz: I don't question Obama's patriotism, and most of my colleagues don't, either."

In fact, Howie, you just did.

Also, Ana Marie, I think the title of your post is inaccurate, since it gives more innate credibility to those participating than their qualifications and education in the areas discussed support.

Gerson, for example, is way in over his head in this discussion.

The title of your post confers far too much authority on the folks speaking and opining in your post, is representative of a very small sample being discussed, and should be changed to reflect that. Perhaps a title that conveys the nature of the conference would be more suitable. More along the lines of "Polling Religion and Politics"...

Let's just be clear what's going on here.

The PDF I linked to is Pew semiannual relgion in america survey. It's a good data source that's worth keeping handy. There are no political questions in the survey. The listing following page 127 is worth having around; it shows what a hodgepodge American religion is.

The article AMC links to on Catholics and Clinton is Jim Dwyer writing in the NYT (good pickup from the Daily News, is Dwyer) about the New York primary, Clinton's home state. That, and the numbers in Ana post uses exit polls from, respectively, NY and PA to make their stew from two oysters.

So you have very few evangelicals in the numbers, no southern evangelicals. You've got the race at the moment in time the PA and the NY primaries took place. There's no state breakdown for religious affiliation in the PEW report, but NY and PA are not particularly Catholic states, not like MA or RI.

I'd still like to see an age/religion crosstab in those two primary exit polls. Lemme see if I can find that....

"There's no state breakdown for religious affiliation in the PEW report, but NY and PA are not particularly Catholic states, not like MA or RI."

Percantage of Catholics by state.
RI 1 Mass 2 Ny 5 and Penn 7
As of 2006 anyway
http://tinyurl.com/6atyao

Vanished at CNN. CBS has no crosstabs:

Protestant/Attend weekly (9%) 50% 50%
Protestant/Do not attend weekly (15%) 57% 43%
Catholic/Attend weekly (18%) 74% 26%
Catholic/Do not attend weekly (18%) 65% 35%
All Others (39%) 41% 59%

But GALSTON gave us the crosstabs. All we need to see whether this is an proxy is the number of voters/percentage of voters in his age numbers (the gap is 3 percent for 18-44).

That's a simple question, AMC. How many catholics are there in those two subgroups in PA? He can just give them in percentage terms, as does the CBS poll.

"an age proxy"

Thanks PNNTO. This, from there,

1 59.2% Rhode Island 640,274
2 42.7% Massachusetts 4,865,216
3 41.1% New Jersey 3,605,265
4 38.7% Connecticut 1,357,992
5 37.6% New York 7,433,366
6 29.9% Illinois 3,867,102
7 29.4% Pennsylvania 3,614,694
8 29.2% Texas 6,742,690
9 29.0% Wisconsin 1,605,155
10 28.8% California 10,906,992

Is more useful.

NY is well above the national 24 percent average. PA not so much.

Indiana? Half the national average at 12.3% and NC 3.9%

Indeed, in MA she crushed him. And really crushed him (2 to 1) among Catholics http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MADEM

This effect does look real.

White Protestants vote for Blacks to atone for slavery.

Therefore, Blacks vote for Whites to let them know they are forgiven for slavery.

Shouldn't Catholics feel even more guilty than White Protestants since they didn't elect an African Pope?

Just some random thoughts.

Patroclus: Gerson is an "Anglican" who pulled his church out of the worldwide Anglican union because of blatant homophobia, and it re-aligned with an African version, whose former leader...

Gerson is a member of a former Episcopal Church in Falls Church, Va, which split from the Episcopal Church, but remained in the worldwide Anglican Communion by putting itself under the jurisdiction of Peter Akinola, then and still Archbishop of Nigeria, in the Anglican Church. The final straw for these now "Anglican" congregations was the election of a woman, Katharine Jefferts Shori, as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. She, by the way, had been a marine biologist before she became a priest.

Swamplanders: Not all believers are on the right, fail to understand metaphor and symbolism, are homophobic, etc. Some of you are falling into the same sloppy thinking as those you accuse.

http://realreligiousleft.blogspot.com/2006/07/katharine-jefferts-schori-on-opbs.html

Not all believers are on the right, fail to understand metaphor and symbolism, are homophobic...

Are you channeling Amy Sullivan?

I didn't notice any disrespect for faith on this thread. Maybe I didn't look hard enough.

Paul D:

I am so not Amy Sullivan I've never even read anything from her.

Disrespect isn't the issue. it's painting with a broad brush, which I am contesting - lazily, as it turns out. Should have gone back and found the specific comments the first time.

"i know all you religious robots have trouble with symbolism)"

This proves Hitchens' point that religion is societally destructive!

@KathyR,

Thanks, I stand corrected.

Here's an Amy Sullivan link:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_11/005085.php

She is trying very hard to reclaim the high ground that was lost when Jerry Falwell managed to convince people that the Creator of the Known Universe was a Republican but she as an annoying habit of overstating the opposition to religion that exists on the left.

Speaking of religion and politics - just saw this over at politico and thought it worth mentioning - http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Somwhere_John_Wesley_is_smiling.html

Paul D: Oh dear, I don't really disagree with anything in the link you sent me. She sounds in that piece like she's making the point that there's more religious expression on the left than the right acknowledges.

I am not always sure what sort of believer I am myself, but I am sure I don't like the right co-opting the word "Christian" for their exclusive use. And I am sure I'm unhappy about how many people have bought the right's claims about what it means to be a Christian.

"I'm kind of upset at the idea that people would vote for the black candidate because of guilt for slavery. Can't it just be that we think he's the best candidate?" - ZSMorgan, no the MSM has carefully explained that all Obama supporters are voting for him because he's black, and all Clinton's supporters are voting for her because she's white, or because she's a woman. People who don't have racial and gender prejudices vote for McCain.

I don't really buy this idea that religious affiliation is a significant factor in voting choices. I think the gap is more likely due to the national backgrounds of most Catholics and Protestants. Immigrants from Anglican England and Catholic Ireland, for example, had very different experiences and they became concentrated in different occupations and locations. Even a century later, that could still have an effect on other socioeconomic characteristics of their descendants, beyond education and income.

I do find the gap between younger and older evangelicals interesting. One of the great things about finally accessing non-white-male political talent is that both Obama and Clinton can help transcend some cultural barriers. Obama's Philadelphia speech is one example of that, and I've also been very impressed by Clinton's ability to talk constructively, firmly, and very compassionately about abortion. I do think it's an area where a female politician can bring a different and very valuable perspective to politics, and it wouldn't surprise me if she could attract some young evangelicals who care about the environment and poverty in a GE, and who could at least understand and respect her position on abortion, even if they don't agree with her.

Paul: Correction - as for "what sort of believer" I am, I'm an Episcopalian, but as to what I believe, well that's pretty fluid.

Rose - I think you might be right about the immigrant experience re: religious affiliation and loyalty. In large cities there were, and maybe still are, churches that were known as the "Irish Catholic" church, or the "Italian Catholic" church, and membership was as much or more a matter of ethnic identification as it was neighborhood. I really don't know if that was true as much for protestantism - except by whole denominations, maybe.

How, exactly, does Barack's position on abortion differ from Hillary's? I think they are very similar (though I think he has said he thinks the state does have the right to regulate late term abortions, if the life of the mother is protected.)

@KathyR

The link I sent was just the first one that google presented. I didn't intend it as an example of her inapropriate arguments. To paraphrase Joe Klein, I have neither the time nor inclination to dig them up.

I do reccomend you explore further. The religious left certainly gets short-shrift when it comes to media exposure or acknowlegment.

She and Jim Wallis are both prominent voices trying to correct that situation.

Rose--

this was my point when the panelists were going on and on about the structure of the various sects. It's not that they're Catholic--it's that Catholic is a proxy for other stuff. It thought it might be age, but it is not. So it's just silly to say that Catholics respect authoritai more than evangelicals do.

Rose--

this was my point when the panelists were going on and on about the structure of the various sects. It's not that they're Catholic--it's that Catholic is a proxy for other stuff. It thought it might be age, but it is not. So it's just silly to say that Catholics respect authoritai more than evangelicals do.

jayackroyd, I agree.

KathyR, yes I think their positions on abortion are the same. But I just think her gender helps her better explain her position; It's natural that the political discussion of abortion should feature women. Clearly Obama's race helps him better explain other issues. Which is yet another reason why I would love to see them on the same ticket...

And you raise a good point about different branches of Protestantism. Is there any data on voting choice by protestant denomination? I'm sounding so Mark Penn here...

the exit polls break out evangelical vs non-evangelical, and frequency of attendance.