Religion and the Election

via Slate

from JoeUser Forums

This article from Slate is very interesting.

"As you may already know, one of America's two political parties is extremely religious. Sixty-one percent of this party's voters say they pray daily or more often. An astounding 92 percent of them believe in life after death. And there's a hard-core subgroup in this party of super-religious Christian zealots. Very conservative on gay marriage, half of the members of this subgroup believe Bush uses too little religious rhetoric, and 51 percent of them believe God gave Israel to the Jews and that its existence fulfills the prophecy about the second coming of Jesus."

But there's a twist... RTWT
politics
2,835 views 3 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Great post, had me thinking, THE WRONG GROUP!.. Guess that was the idea. This is a good read and an eye opener. Thanks for posting it.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
If people voted on the basic religious values their churches promote, there would never be a Democratic president... ever.

The fact is, though, that we constantly vote for people who share nothing of the world view of religion. Catholics vote for pro-choice candidates in droves. Little old African American ladies who never miss church voted for someone like Bill Clinton, and by a huge margin. Some of the most devout religious people in the US are Hispanics, and they consistantly vote for morally liberal candidates.

For that reason I think we should look at all the hubbub about the religious beliefsof people in public service. It is damn near impossible to get a Catholic approved as a federal judge because the activists in congress think their anti-abortion, pro "values" bent will color their judgements.

If the average American can vote with no fear of religious conflict, it seems like we could let judges and other government leaders do the same.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
It goes both ways - I'm not an active christian, and I generally side up with the republicans.

I agree with BakerStreet - the problem is, many current judges rule with their consciences rather than with the law - so that is the assumed default. And we are in an environemtn where the balance of power is held by the judiciary; so neither side believes that they can allow a partisan of the other side be nominated; nor be seen to nominate a compromise candidate. What happens when a Supreme Court Justice retires, and neither side can muster 60 votes int eh senate to end the filibuster of their candidate?

Just remember who started it.