It Wasn't Just (Or Even Mostly) the 'Religious Right'

New Beliefnet Analysis: Catholics and moderately religious voters were just as important as very religious 'Born Agains'

acolytejohn

12/31/2004 08:29:46 AM

Pepole voted for who they whanted.most Americans did not fall for the lies of mikle moore or Dan Rather

brigid

11/15/2004 11:22:51 AM

Scare-words are what a lot of single-issue voters fell for in this election. Especially since the Democrats didn't go out of their way to refute any of it and ran a tepid campaign.

brigid

11/15/2004 11:17:47 AM

Disagreeing with the government certainly is not a communist thing. Communists who disagreed with their governments wind up in prison, or worse. "Un-American" to stand up for what you believe is right? Does that make our Founding Fathers un-American? In today's lexicon these are "scare-words" which the other side uses to coerce their opponents into shutting up. Bigot can be used as a scare-word, but often is only the truth. There are many other scare-words out there. Both sides use them. What is really needed is not scare-words, but a thought provoking dialog. Most people are not liberal or conservative, but middle-of-the-roaders who need to speak up and not let either side's scare-words shut them up.

whatzaname

11/12/2004 03:49:40 PM

I would glady refrain from using words like "bigotry" if others would refrain from doing things that can be described no other way. It is not "communist" to disagree with your government, or to want equal rights extended to all americans. "Un-American" is really a word with no meaning, but certainly could not be used to describe an American who stands up for right. Bigotry. Now there's a word with an unmistakable meaning.

Heretic_for_Christ

11/12/2004 07:11:58 AM

Snickerdoodle, Though we may differ on issues, I agree about the polarizing effects of inflammatory words. I've been guilty of it myself, and it doesn't help. On the other hand, it has been said that two people can't even argue if they aren't speaking the same language. I don't know if communication is possible between a person whose thinking is based on facts and logical analysis and one whose thinking is based on literal interpretations of scripture. On these lists, exchanges often consist of a factual argument, rebutted by a scriptural selection, counter-rebutted by a logical analysis of what scripture says, counter-counter-rebutted by more scripture... I can argue with someone whose social-political views differ from my own as long as we are both using facts and analysis honestly. And although I know the Bible as well as most fundamentalists, I see no point in firing scriptural salvos back and forth.

snickerdoodle

11/12/2004 02:08:08 AM

I would advise against words like bigotry. It evokes the same angry response from the right (along with ignorant or redneck etc.) that things like communist and unamerican stir up in the left. It just rocks the boat and prevents people from listening to an arguement because they feel insulted or that the other side is "ignorant" of their actual views. Say what you want, of course, that just my view. Peace.

snickerdoodle

11/12/2004 02:04:16 AM

A gay marriage ban will never pass in the senate, its too politically dangerous. I'm not saying this because I'm against such a ban but because if there isn't already a loophole to stop it then its far too easy for a senator or congressman to be remembered as the guy who voted for that ammendement and possibly ruining his chances of reelection in the future. I am against ammending the constitution for this purpose, though, I feel that each state (like CA who has already passed a ban) should make the choice as well as enforce it (thats where CA failed).

whatzaname

11/11/2004 10:19:30 PM

Of course, I meant miscegenation. Though misogyny has often been codified by the same sort of "folks" as codified miscegenation ...and now homophobia.

whatzaname

11/11/2004 10:12:19 PM

After listening to the comments of Bush voters on Nov 2, it is apparant that fear and bigotry ruled the day. Its sad, but true. And I can come to terms with that only when I also recognize that younger voters lean further left, and eventually, though very likely not in my lifetime, the constitution will be made right (as I'm sure the right will now push for an amendment to codify their bigotry), and this will simply be remembered as a regrettable event in American history, like McCarthyism, or the laws that used to exist against misogyny. Those laws, by the way, were backed up by the very same arguments today used to justify laws against gay marriage. Time rolls on, and THAT'S what comforts me. This too, will pass.

Heretic_for_Christ

11/11/2004 12:28:05 PM

Barblee, In response to your view that God installed Bush in the White House, I invite you to go to the page "Did God Intervene?" and read the last dozen or so postings as of this date and time. (Beliefnet home page, under Faith & Politics 2004, click on the link "God Pushed the Election to Bush," article by Deborah Caldwell.) I can't get anyone to give me a straight answer to HOW God intervened and whether that means God did not want the election to proceed freely. Maybe you can.

barblee

11/11/2004 11:28:39 AM

The hunger in this world is appalling and every nation and every person on this earth should be in tune with what is happening in Somalia and other African nations. Babies and children are crying out for our help and we as nations should be there for them. Our united nations used to stand for something in decades gone by and as a nation we should demand that something be done about the famines all over thiw world.

barblee

11/11/2004 11:26:06 AM

There are millions of us in this country that care about morals and Christian values and I believe this was evident in the recent election. Many will say that other factors were involved but it is my opinion that God and his people kept Bush in office. For this nation to survive we must turn ourselves toward God and ask Him to bless us and this nation. He is our shelter now and in the future.

Urnest

11/10/2004 02:14:12 PM

umdedu, i am a buddhist married to a christian clergy woman and i can join you point for point in your values statements--very nice and clear, and gratifying to read.

Heretic_for_Christ

11/10/2004 12:32:13 PM

Umdedu, Except for your introductory statements about being church-loving and politically affiliated, I think your profession of beliefs is almost like a paraphrase of the Sermon on the Mount in its clarion call for mercy and justice in the world.

umdedu

11/09/2004 11:29:06 PM

One more thing. I am a deeply spiritual, church-loving, left-center, God-seeking Democrat. I attend church about twice a month, sometimes more often, sometimes less. Yet I have a close relationship with God in that I pay very close attention to His calling. I consider capital punishment equal as sinful as abortion. I consider the Iraq War equally as sinful as abortion. I consider world hunger equally as sinful as abortion. I consider the destruction of our environment equally as sinful as abortion. I consider social injustice equally as sinful as abortin. I consider the endorsement by bishops of Bush equally as sinful as Judas kissing Jesus before turning over to the Romans.

umdedu

11/09/2004 11:21:02 PM

I am sure some progressive Christians voted for Bush. Hell even Satan would probably garner votes, especially if he put on a flight suit and landed on an aircraft. The key is: Did a majority of progressives vote for Bush? The answer is hell no!!!! We know a Pharisee when we see and hear one.

amilius

11/09/2004 09:33:41 PM

Have you ever noticed that when Bush the Lesser or Rumsfeld discuss Islamic insurgents and jihadis, they invariably do so interms that describe our own horrific choices against the populations we occupy and subjugate? It's fascinating. As for the 'Religious Right', how can it be right when their aims are to limit religious appreciation and freedom to a very narrow and limited view. We do well to remember that God exists without religion and is perhaps best experienced and appreciated without it as well. I prefer a very secular acronym of Graciously Organized Design myself. That is the purpose of renewed interest in spiritual explorations unrestrained by religious doctirmes. Perhaps they'd consider using the term apropos dogmatic hypocrites, the "Religious Wrong"?

thephilosopher54

11/09/2004 07:51:04 PM

I am wondering if you have observed, as have I, the similarites between Bush and Ossma Bin Laden... 1. Both believe that might makes right. 2. Both think they are fighting "the enemies of God." 3. Bin Laden and Bush believe the end justifies the means. 4. They both either have weapons of mass destruction, or are tying to acquire them. 5. Both do not allow the deaths of innocent people to stand in their way. 6. Both have narrow-minded and dogmatic religious believers as their political base. 7. Both were born wealthy and have a sense of entitlement. 8. Both believe in absolute Good and absolute Evil. 9. Neither believes in questioning their convictions. 10. Both believe that God is with them, and that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.

charima1

11/09/2004 01:59:54 PM

seeker345 i agree with on the situation on how Canada's goverment is runned. I have lived in BC and enjoyed the fact that every one had medical coverage. Citizen's and vistor's a like. America on the on the other hand, provides medical for the wealthy and the immigrants that flood are borders. If u are a refuge fleeing here becuase of prossecustion, u are given citizenship, money and a job. A fresh start, with every thing handed to u. I believe in help less fortunate, but we have our own less fortunate here in America. We need to look at the mess we have caused our own people first, than worry about the world.

BlessedCelt

11/09/2004 10:56:43 AM

katbowen: Thank you for the eloquent words. They really resonate with me and with my beliefs - -and with what I have seen in my own life: when women are given a safe and caring alternative, they rarely chose to terminate their pregnancy. If we as pro-life advocates can make sure that all lives are valued -- not just the rich and powerful or the well-known -- we will go a long way toward removing the need/desire for abortion.

marakama

11/08/2004 08:23:52 PM

i want to thank you people for your writings and thoughts. i also want to remind you that not everyone was on the side of vengence and separatism under the guise of waving the "moral" flag. it will be more important that ever for us to be vigilant with compassion regarding the situations this country will enter into on a world wide level - social, religious, economical and environmental. i believe this was a turning point in american history. but the fact mr kerry did not win the presidency does not take away from the spiritually enlightened souls who voted for true and loving change. we must fuel each other with communication and care. we must stand up for justice. we must stand together.

Friend_Of_Jonathan

11/08/2004 08:07:15 PM

How accurate can the analysis by Waldman and Green really be, when the bnet poll on the same page indicates that the character of the candidates was the most influential trait - not religious issues like abortion and gay marriage. Are these two spinning more bs for their own aggrandizement?

Bravo88

11/08/2004 04:25:26 PM

I wonder, what are the Americans seeing when they look at Bush? I realize not everyone supports him but that so many voted for him, it's almost like they voted for the "devil they knew" rather than the "devil they didn't know". From what I can tell, neither Kerry nor Nader were particularily better choices. What if Americans had voted against all of those choices?

Bravo88

11/08/2004 04:22:24 PM

What can one say? I for the life of me cannot understand the way that Americans voted (neither can I undestand the way Canadians/BCers voted). If I had been an American and voting, Bush definitely wouldn't have gotten my vote because I will not vote for someone just because they claim to be Christian. If they appear to be ethical and have a plan for improving the country then that is another matter. To vote for someone because they positioned themselves as being "Christian", in spite of presumed evidence to the contrary is not just foolish but irresponsible and an injustice.

jedinord

11/08/2004 03:26:22 PM

i find it interesting that the so-called "moral values" of those that voted for Bush only included abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marraige. I guess it is moral to lie, mislead, pre-empt war, reward those that do harm, drive people into poverty, and roll back regulations so polluters can poison our world. These are the things that actually effect every one of us every day. Does two men getting married effect you on a day to day basis? How about that rape victim who wants an abortion? I have to commend the fascist right. You guys really know how to work the fear and smear tactics. No truth left unbent, no big corporation left behind. I am disgusted with my beloved country today.

johndavid23

11/08/2004 12:00:10 PM

What a spin! I thought it was the vote of the ignorant, those who still believed Iraq had WMD, etc. who gave Bush the presidency; well, that and the electronic voting machines that invariably made mistakes in Bush's favor.

nightngle

11/08/2004 09:36:41 AM

For all the so-called religious people who voted for Bush, please list for yourself the countries that have invaded other countries throughout history. Then ask yourself if you like the company we're in.

jimmyrow

11/07/2004 01:07:06 PM

Thanks thefish. Have a great Sunday! jimmy

thefish

11/07/2004 12:44:48 PM

jimmyrow... Very well put...I couldn't have said it better myself. Peace <

Heretic_for_Christ

11/07/2004 12:22:10 PM

Seeker345, I, too, am a health professional. We might have a lively debate on the American medical system, but beliefnet is not the proper venue. Although I had little regard for Bush in his first months in office, I applauded his action in Afghanistan after 9/11. Had the war on terrorism continued in that well-focused way, I don't know how I would have voted, weighing that issue against my distaste for his economic policies and his pandering religiosity. But instead, he chose to indulge his obsession with deposing Saddam Hussein, which led Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change--27 career diplomats, intelligence experts, and military leaders, many of whom worked for the elder Bush and Reagan—to call for his defeat on grounds that his recklessness had endangered America. Is the world better off without Saddam? Of course it is, but the question is whether the world is better off with a superpower that is accountable to no one and whose chief executive thinks God put him in office.

jimmyrow

11/07/2004 12:21:41 PM

The role of government is to create, maintain, and advance an infrastructure of order, equality, freedom, and quality of life. It's vitally imnportant that government be empowered to do the things that capitalism is unable or unwilling to do. Capitalism has no conscience. It is not concerned with the quality of life or uplifting the human condition. It is only concerned with profits. That's fine provided government is a healthy and separate counterbalance to corporate power. Unfortunately, our government has been corporatized. Government must serve the interests of people rather than material power. Money is not life and money is not true power. Money is necessary for commerce but is too often the ego's measure of our worth as humans. Also, this tired notion that the Dems are for bigger government just isn't credible. It's Reagan and the Bushes that have run up gov't spending and enormous deficits.

Seeker345

11/07/2004 10:54:41 AM

No system is perfect. However, the moment you get government involved it opens up for mismanagement and bureaucracy of major portions. (worse than it is now) I point to the Canadian system and our own Medicare/Medicaid systems.

Seeker345

11/07/2004 10:49:40 AM

It is not the job of government to care for it's citizens. Your reference to largest expansion of government power - I guess you have forgotten 911. Islamic terrorist attacked our country - I guess we should have laid down and done nothing, as we have in the past decade or so.

Seeker345

11/07/2004 10:42:05 AM

That's the beauty of America - we may agree to disagree. Health Care is NOT a social issue. You listen to the liberal media spin too much. Again, this is an item of choice. I for one chose not to pay for coverage for over 15 yr as I was healthy and didn't wish to purchase insurance - I paid for office calls when needed. I am also close to the health industry from various aspects and I see the crisis is from trial lawyers.

Heretic_for_Christ

11/07/2004 10:19:06 AM

Seeker345, I guess we'll not agree, but the economists who called Bush's plan more expensive were not Kerry partisans; government provision of health coverage came about because lack of coverage was a social disaster; and freedom from big government does not describe a president who has led the largest expansion of government power and spending in modern history.

Seeker345

11/07/2004 10:01:17 AM

Well, it depends on which economists you read. The unbias definitely refer to Kerry's was unworkable. Besides, when has it become the job of government to provide health care? Putting government "in charge" of health would not be in the interest of the many. Have you looked into the Medicare system? As for the Revolutary War - yes - it was about "Freedom". That is my point, freedom from more bigger government, which is what Kerry and the Democrats propose - more government control.

Heretic_for_Christ

11/07/2004 09:32:34 AM

Seeker345, To address 2 specific items you mention: 1) economists who compared Kerry's and Bush's health proposals reported that Bush's would have been more expensive; and 2) the Revolution was about freedom from British rule; what exactly does that have to do with the issues in this election?

Seeker345

11/07/2004 08:45:24 AM

I am amazed with the various posts. Again, I repeat - the Democrats have become the Euro's Socialist Party. The Socialists have proven to be ineffective, indecisive and blind to reality. You complain about the 1000 deaths in Iraq - yet it was acceptable for the 100,000 plus deaths by Islam Terrorist and Saddam. Makes sense to me. Religion really had nothing to do with this election - that is nothing more than Media spin. Talk about bankrupting the country, Kerry's health plan would have done just that. It is NOT the job of "big" government to provide "all" to it's citizens. What makes this country great - is people helping people in need, not government. The mere definition of government should scare you - "the exercise of authority over a state, organization - CONTROL" Have you forgotten why America had the Revolutionary War???

marriedpriest

11/07/2004 05:44:53 AM

For people living in Europe we were surprised by the outcome of the voting. Anyway that's democracy! I believe it is not just to label religion as the main significant factor in electing Mr. Bush. It would be more appropriate to write a list of decisive factors. Secondly I don't agree to label one leader more religious than other! This could lead to some dangerous conclusions. (http://pages.ivillage.com/imhabba63/marriedcatholicpriest)

amilius

11/07/2004 04:03:04 AM

Dubya duped the American public with fear, nothing more. For those involved in evangelical or conservative catholic perspectives, fear is the path to which they have grown most accustomed, no matter how ill serving it seems the rest of their aspirations. Their fears of being mislead by the ungracious and ungodly have been realized by choosing this travesty of a christian as president.

nnmns

11/07/2004 12:04:56 AM

Among so many other things that were lost with this election, there's the ability of a Catholic to be nominated or elected. When I grew up many felt electing a Catholic amounted to putting the Pope into that office. Kennedy made it possible for Catholics to hold office. Now some Catholic officials have made it clear if you elect a Catholic you'd better get a promise from him or her ahead of time they will represent you, not their Cardinal.

tica

11/06/2004 11:51:18 PM

Thankyou for those of you who have posted. I was starting to lose some of my faith in the people of this country. I am still not at the age to vote but would have paid a lot to do so this election year. I am also recovering from this tragic election and couldn't believe that so many who voted for Bush elected him according to their "moral" values. I am not entirely clear on what those "morals" are becuase what this so-called President of ours has done was nothing but decieve his people, violate our rights entirely with the Patriot Act, and take the lives of thousands. After his re-election I wondered if the people are blinded by their ignorance or what?? Now all we can do is continue praying so that God may bless our country and everyone around the world for that matter.

next_chapter

11/06/2004 09:35:18 PM

missfields ~ I want to commend you for looking at all of the issues & voting based on common sense, not merely on 1 or 2 issues. I'm certain that people on both sides didn't agree with all the issues of their candidate, but I do believe that you have to look at the whole picture.

missfields

11/06/2004 09:17:51 PM

I am a christian. Personally, I do not believe in abortion however, I do beleive that a marriage is union between a man and a woman. On Nov 2, I picked the button next to the democratic John Kerry for president. I did not exactly vote for Kerry, I voted for a change to Bush's policies on education, health care, the economy, and the war in Iraq. Bush has already bankrupt this nation and he will continue to drive this country's economy right into the ground. He did it to the state of Texas when he was governor and he will do it to the US. Bush only cares about the almighty dollar, the more he can put into his pocket and his rich cronies like Haliburton the better he will like it. Mark my words, 'Americans who voted for Bush will live to regret it'. This is not a threat, this is a promise that Bush will destroy America. He IS the weapon of mass disception. And you will have no one to blame but yourselves.

galesms

11/06/2004 05:44:43 PM

The sheep-like catholics who voted for Bush will surely live to regret it; they have abandoned the long-time catholic commitment to the poor and disenfranchised, not to mention the thousands of deaths for which Bush is now responsible. And who with a wit of sense would listen to these despicable, hypocritical bishop telling them who not to vote for because of respect for life--these are the same men who, for decades, sheltered, coddled,and enabled child rapists, and now continue to try to obstruct justice in many cases--these men are going to speak to the sanctity of life? I guess lives of the tens of thousands of children molested are not as important as unborn children. The catholic church is it's own worst enemy. Sit back and watch it unravel.

rockosplace

11/06/2004 03:07:28 PM

This is a matter of the Islamic faith not bringing their own people to justice because they are being controlled by dictators that want to use their faith as a means to declare war against a democratic mind set that would never elect them in the first place. If the Islamic faith were able to catch these terrorists and bring them to justice for the Americans there would be no war. But unfortunately the just Islamic leaders were not in control of the weapons in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan so we are in the process of shuffling the leaders so that the Islamic leaders that may have a more democratic view can begin to at least stop the terrorists and bring the honor back to their faith. Many Muslim leaders in the world are glad we are removing leaders that have hijacked their faith.

rockosplace

11/06/2004 02:50:12 PM

Pope Pius XII did not support Hitler during the war. It is common knowledge that he remained neutral during WWII which caused a huge problem for the Catholic Church which could have been conceived as support because the Pope did not condem the nazism going on in his own backyard. Can't say I would blame him considering what might have happened to the church if he tried to stand in the way of Hitler. The Catholic Church did condem the attacks on American on September 11th. President Bush is leading a War on Terror, which as it turns out is against mainly Islamic faith terrorists, not against the Islamic faith.

LAHSM

11/06/2004 02:43:37 PM

Can we please stop talking about Bush??? I'm still recovering from the election.

fromoz

11/06/2004 01:05:35 PM

Just as the Catholic Church supported Hitler in his genocidal attack on the Jews, perhaps we now see the Catholic Church supporting President Bush in his genocidal attack against Islam?

fromoz

11/06/2004 01:02:32 PM

Nr wh asks, "Those of you who are "pro life" may ask yourselves why you support a candidate who started an aggressive war on a third world country and killed many thousands of people" The answer is clesr to most people in the rest of the World, and it revolves around racism and religion. The Bible calls for those who do not accept the God of Israel to be murdered? While most unborn in the US are Evangelical, most unborn murdered by various US administrations are Communists or Moslems. You can lie to start an invasion and murder innocent Moslems, including the unborn, but in the perverted mind of many Christians in President Bush's "Crusade", it's a different thing to take the life of a potential US citizen. Or as Hitler was "pro-life" to build-up a steady supply of "cannon-fodder", perhaps that is also part of why the US is mimiking Hitler and becoming more hysterically "pro-life"?

PHJIndy

11/06/2004 12:25:29 PM

I'm very disappoint that within my Catholic Church "pro life" has become a phrase for nothing more than anti-abotion. There are so many other "life" issues that are equally important. We Catholics have become so narrow minded, however, that most of these other important issues have been forgotten, or at least shoved to the background. I urge everyone to read Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter With Kansas." It's a social commentary concerning how the conservatives have "won" the hearts of America.

nr_wh

11/06/2004 09:47:31 AM

Those of you who are "pro life" may ask yourselves why you support a candidate who started an aggressive war on a third world country and killed many thousands of people. And ask why these same people who oppose abortion often will not support sex education and the use of birth control. In addition, they oppose social supports for youth that might reduce the likelihood of engaging in irresponsible sexual activity. As for gays: Why do fundies think that their own relationships and family life will be undermined by homosexuality. It won't be. It is not contageous. I wonder how we as straights would feel if our intimate relationships were constantly being judged and commented upon in our churches and media.

cknuck

11/06/2004 09:24:23 AM

What was really hard for America to accept, and I agree it was dems, rep, and even some libs and many more group we sometimes fail to take in account. What is hard for America to accept is the further removal of God. We have experienced God in war and we have even came closer to God in poverty, but out right murder of the most defenseless form of life on the planet was unacceptable and sexual revolution as changed the morals of this country way too much. I think when people look at a lot of the change that the whole sex thing (homosexual and other) they grieve.

indy11

11/06/2004 09:13:27 AM

I agree that the Catholic vote was more for Bush. They are predominately against abortion and homosexuality. I also think that most dems are too. Dems by and large however realize that no amount of legislation will stop either of these. Making them illegal is symbolic and that's about as far as it will go. The problem i see with this rage against "a" and "h" from Catholics and evangelicals is there acceptance of war and poverty and their support of the death penalty. Would Jesus accept one and turn away from the other? No.

zamboc

11/06/2004 08:55:30 AM

At this crucial period,the Catholic voters realized that Bush moral and religious beliefs or positions were more in tune with what the Catholic Faithful believed in. Though Kerry professes to be Catholic,his sincere unCatholic views on abortion,gay marriage etc. led to his alienation from the faithful.

Seeker345

11/06/2004 08:32:45 AM

As I have been reading the various comments the past several days, and have been left bewildered. I am not sure why you are on this site. Liberal hate caused the loss of this election. The Democrat party has become the "Socialist's" party and a party of "Me's". I agree with Zell Miller, the 'old' Democrat party is no more and has abandoned the majority. If the Democrats truly wanted to win this election, they coulda, shoulda placed a stronger, better canidate on their ticket. The votes Kerry secured, in my opinion, we die-hard Democrat votes, who would have voted Democrat regardless of the canidate. Kerry offered nothing to convience me he was "the" man. All of his blather was hype and no substance, "I will fight a smarter war", "I have a plan". He never offered any over-view of WHAT he would do or what his "plan" was. You were expected to simply accept the statements with no substance. Mostly I feel, many people voted AGAINST Kerry and the Democrat Party rather than FOR Bush.

synthsz1

11/06/2004 01:02:58 AM

According to this article: "Efforts by liberal Catholic groups and the Kerry campaign to court them were puny by comparison to pro-Bush efforts. " Uh, nope. The web site of Catholics for Kerry 04 had a huge impact on the vote.....and surveys other than this article which is determined one way or another to slant Catholic votes to Bush said the opposite. It just so happens that what brought Bush in was the fear mongering that his minnion Carl Rove engaged in.....and those votes just happened to be many fundies, a few moderate evangelicals and even fewer Catholics. It was a --terror-- vote, not a religious vote that pushed the lever this time around. The spin in this article regarding religion just does not wash compared to mainstream news reports. Synth

synthsz1

11/06/2004 12:58:09 AM

Someone on one of the CNN programs stated that while the initial impression was that it was the fundies that came through for Kerry, the votes were much more specific to those who thought that Bush would keep them safer. That was the deciding factor in this election. And rocksoplace.... Catholics do not --submit-- to religious authority. Catholics no longer kiss robes, rings and toes of ecclesiastical figurines. In fact, Voice of the Faithful had some in the hierarchy rather anxious over the past couple of years. Seems to me roles are getting reversed big time. Synth...still a proud Democrat, practicing Catholic and voted for John Kerry

rockosplace

11/06/2004 12:54:07 AM

Katbowen, Jesus instructs us to teach the Word and that gives you the right to tell the Word. It is a persons choice to follow or not follow the Word. Your priest tells you how you should believe, do you follow your priest's teachings? Our government has always had the right to tell us the law. But what law do we really follow. We can walk in the governments law and be walking in sin. We as a country under our law give a woman the 'right to choice' but that is still murder of an innocent child. Our law should be set up for that unborn child just as it is for a newborn that a woman may decide to kill. This shows how satan has interfered with actual the way God has intended His Love to flow.

katbowen

11/06/2004 12:09:34 AM

I am Catholic; I abhor abortion; I also do not have the right to tell anyone else how to believe any more than they have that right over me. Since abortion is tied directly to one's religious beliefs, it isn't the place of government to regulate it. It is the place of religion to provide services and aid to women in crisis pregnancies (and, as impotantly, support post-delivery aid like housing and decent healthcare). I find it ironic that those who support the least government interference have no qualms supporting government interference in one's most personal beliefs and moral decisions. I have found many neighbors who state they are pro-life do not really do more than support legislation; I have also heard many, some of my own faith, condemn and belittle unwed mothers or express pity for the children. They don't need pity - they need assistance and acceptance. I would argue Bush's policies - cutting so many programs that assist children & the poor has resulted in more abortions.

rockosplace

11/06/2004 12:00:29 AM

Purpleku69, They fit into God's word, Read Rev. 2:18-29 The key to understanding God's Love is to understand a submission to His word. All churches He will judge. God I believe has things against everyone because we are all cursed with sin and death. Once we die to our sin we live in His love, His Greatest gift. Back on topic, all these moral issues were on display this election and the outcomes stand by themselves. America has voted. Let His people have ears to hear.

purpleku69

11/05/2004 11:47:50 PM

What about "gay" churches, like the Metropolitain Communnity Church, or I Love The Lord Christian Fellowship? How do they fit in with what you just said.

rockosplace

11/05/2004 11:38:23 PM

in the tv, It is common thought that anyone agianst Gay marriage hates a gay person. That is a very false statement. I love all mankind and all people. I, like God, hates sin as the Bible states. God's word is Truth. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual misconduct. Turning from sin is the hardest thing for a person to do when they don't think it is sin. I think the gay hates God's word more than anything else so they feel hated because that is what they are sowing. You reap what you sow.

KeaErisdottir

11/05/2004 11:29:27 PM

Don't forget that a lot of those same religious, law abiding, god-fearing people are tired of being told that they have to give up their hard-earned money for empty social policy promises and give up the right to own guns to defend themselves and their families. I talked to person after person here in my home state who, after talking about God, talked about not wanting to give up their guns. Third was taxes. Gay rights and abortion were a lot further down the list.

rockosplace

11/05/2004 11:17:43 PM

Heretic, Senator Kerry's comment I feel were honest to his beliefs but not honest to how the mainstream Catholics believe. So claiming the Catholic Faith then going on to butcher comments about abortion alienated himself away from those voters that he needed to carry the election. You are correct he was timid and fearful of offending his party and other people, and while trying not to offend anyone he offended many. I think time will tell but the 'I'm a Catholic' statement turned me off the worst during the campaign because I was raised Catholic, love my family and follow Jesus Christ and His values.

god_is_in_the_tv

11/05/2004 11:11:24 PM

It's reassuring to know that the moderates hate gay people as much as the ultra-righties. I'd rather know who my enemies are outright than to have people play lip service to freedom.

rockosplace

11/05/2004 11:06:11 PM

American Anglican, I am republican(now) and give to the poor. Your view of the Republican party is tainted somehow. I do not think the President will hurt SSI anymore than what is hurt right now. My statements are that the Democrats need to change their parties moral standards not to be so Liberal but more to the conservative middle.

rockosplace

11/05/2004 10:57:42 PM

So if the Democrats want a key to winning elections in America they better start getting the issues on Abortion and Gay Marriage correct. A Democrat that stands up and says I'm Pro-Life and Anti Gay Marriage is an outcast in the party. I was Democrat and changed parties because of those moral issues alone. I was a Catholic and am now a born again non-denominational Christian who believes the Catholic church needs vast changes in its congregations moral values. The Catholic Church does not support abortion therefore it should not have a high profile political candidate claiming the faith and not trying to legislate accordingly. Senator Kerry needed to submit to the churches authority on these issues and reflect those views as he legislates.

American_anglican

11/05/2004 10:57:22 PM

what bug me is how republican can came to be christian. They do nothing to help the poor and they never give back. Now Bush is going to mess up ssi. So I know were deep sh#t. The republican most have over look the part of the bible say give to poor.

rockosplace

11/05/2004 10:57:22 PM

In my opinion this statement and President Bush's response was the number one reason for the huge swing in the Catholic vote for the President. It also made me want to really wonder what the Catholic church is doing to raise such a sickening point of view from one of its members, and if that statement alone caused the sense 'of all Catholics think this way', which reversed to the Mainstream Catholics that thought that they by no way would want to be associated with that point of view.

Heretic_for_Christ

11/05/2004 10:56:43 PM

Rockosplace, Kerry's answer on this question, though worded awkwardly, was at least honest. Are you saying that to win the next election, Democrats must be Republicans, reciting the appropriate buzzwords about abortion? I don't know what the next Democratic candidate will think about abotion; I do know that he or she will have to state those views clearly, courageously. and convincingly. I think the main reason Kerry lost is not because he refused to condemn abortion, but because his whole campaign was so timid and fearful of offending anyone that voters saw no evidence of vision or leadership ability in the man. It is tragically ironic that this war hero let political hacks turn him into something so bland.

rockosplace

11/05/2004 10:29:05 PM

If Democrats ever want to win back the White House they can not make these type of statements in a national debate viewed by millions. -------------- DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person? KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today. But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that. ------------------

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

DiggDeliciousNewsvineRedditStumbleTechnoratiFacebook