Too much relegion in politics?

the real reason we lost

I have to admit, I was one of those who supported John Kerry, and as a whole didn't like George Bush. I believe that the war in Iraq was a distraction and based on a predetermined notion by the administration that they wanted to take Saddam out. I believe that by far his policies help those who are more well off, an attempt to recreate Reagan's "trickle down" economics which created huge deficits. I have other policy differences, but that being said, except for Iraq, I think he has done well in the war on terror.

The candidates had clear differences in fiscal, economic, healthcare and other areas. This year would be a chance for people to make a choice in which direction they wanted this country to go, to make a statement about a war that many do not support. So imagine my surprise when I saw the data and "moral issues" was the top factor in how people voted, the economy second, and terrorism THIRD.

I have no problem with moral issues influencing a persons decisions, but with so much going on in the country and in the world, I think changing the moral fiber of the country isn't the top of the list. And let's be fair, when someone says moral values, they mean "MY moral values". A person in San Francisco and an Evangelical Chrstian may both be moral people, but their moral VIEWPOINT will probably not be the same. This does not make either person less moral, or right or wrong, simply different.

This goes to a much larger issue in this country - the role of religion in politics. Approximately 20% of the total votes for George Bush were from Evangelical Christians. They voted for him by a margin of around 80% to 20% for Kerry. Their turnout was also very high due to very effective voter registration drives, organized trips to the polls and the fact that 11 states were voting on amendments to ban gay-marraige. Evangelicals as a rule are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and to a lesser degree feel that sex and violence in the media is causing a "decay" in this country. They are highly motivated, getting highly organized and feel it is their spiritual duty to save the people and this country from what they define as evils. It is their right to their beliefs - religious freedom is a cornerstone of this country, it is the last part that scares me. The laws of this country should not be based on the beliefs of the church. That is not a democracy, that is a theocracy. Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, totally infallible and this belief give to them a strong sense of rightness to what they do. I honestly don't dislike Evangelicals, my uncle is one. I am not a church-going person, but I do consider myself moral and I am frightened that a religious group is getting very close to being able to legislate it's morals and force it's beliefs on everyone.
16,134 views 22 replies
Reply #1 Top
By: Psikotik
Posted: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 on psikotik.JoeUser.com
Message Board: Democrat
I am not a church-going person, but I do consider myself moral and I am frightened that a religious group is getting very close to being able to legislate it's morals and force it's beliefs on everyone.


This statement is incorrect. They are in no way close to what you are saying. The morals portion of the election was held by 22% of the american voting public.
Reply #2 Top
Yes, only 22% said it was the reason they voted for Bush, but you are ignoring the fact that 20% of his total vote was from Evangelicals, whom many of his policies have been meant to appeal to and obviously he couldn't have won without. Not to mention the even larger effect these groups can have on smaller congressional and senatorial races. For right or wrong the Republicans are considered the "religious" party and they do court that vote. If you look at Congress and the Supreme Court it is entirely plausible that in the near future they will be able to exert undue influence on policy decisions.
Reply #3 Top
"...but I do consider myself moral and I am frightened that a religious group is getting very close to being able to legislate it's morals and force it's beliefs on everyone."

Unfortunately this entire argument is a fallacy. The liberal extreme left or the moderate middle legislate their morality. Example, " Women not having the right to kill their unborn children is immoral.", "Merit is the least important factor in determining someone's qualifications for a job or admission into law school, instead we should place undue importance on external factors." Of course I could on and on. I will save you the futility. For you know, that legislating morality is the goal of any political party, furthermore it the goal of any society democratic or dictatorial.

Cheers, Ithaycu
Reply #4 Top

Reply #2 By: Psikotik - 11/3/2004 9:48:35 PM
Yes, only 22% said it was the reason they voted for Bush, but you are ignoring the fact that 20% of his total vote was from Evangelicals, whom many of his policies have been meant to appeal to and obviously he couldn't have won without. Not to mention the even larger effect these groups can have on smaller congressional and senatorial races. For right or wrong the Republicans are considered the "religious" party and they do court that vote. If you look at Congress and the Supreme Court it is entirely plausible that in the near future they will be able to exert undue influence on policy decisions.


So what? You make it sound like they don't have a right to voice their opinions with their vote.
Reply #5 Top
How is saying "A woman has the right to CHOOSE an abortion if she wants" the same as saying " I believe abortion is murder and therefore NO ONE should have one"? There is a large difference between legislating a secular "you do your thing, I'll do mine" attitude and legislating a Biblical " you will follow the Lord's law" kind of morality. Affirmative action has nothing to do with the argument, as I am talking about religious issues and that is a socio-economic issue. Groups that boycot musicians or try to get TV shows cancelled because they don't like the content - can you honestly tell me they aren't trying to forcing their moral code on others? They don't have to see or hear anything they don't want to, they are trying to keep me from seeing or hearing it. Sorry made the reply to the wrong post. :)
Reply #6 Top
"I welcome faith to help solve the nation's deepest problems."

-George W Bush, November 3, 2004.

Let's hope God really is on his side because if not then Bush is being led by some crazy voice in his head. But for now

ONE NATION UNDER GOD FOREVER!
Reply #7 Top
Psikotic,

I don't see murder as something that is strictly "the Lord's law"....
Reply #8 Top
"I welcome faith to help solve the nation's deepest problems."

-George W Bush, November 3, 2004.

Let's hope God really is on his side because if not then Bush is being led by some crazy voice in his head. But for now

ONE NATION UNDER GOD FOREVER!


Either that or the crazy voice is really Cheney
Reply #9 Top

Let's stop allowing Christians to vote, but let's also stop allowing Pagans and Buddhists from voting too. They bother me too. Atheists too. Muslims too. Let's place our hands in good hands: Scientologists!


Unfortunately this entire argument is a fallacy. The liberal extreme left or the moderate middle legislate their morality. Example, " Women not having the right to kill their unborn children is immoral.", "Merit is the least important factor in determining someone's qualifications for a job or admission into law school, instead we should place undue importance on external factors." Of course I could on and on. I will save you the futility. For you know, that legislating morality is the goal of any political party, furthermore it the goal of any society democratic or dictatorial.


It's funny, because I always hear about how self-righteous, intolerant, and oppressive Christians are, yet I see those same traits in the people who accuse Christians of those traits.

Reply #10 Top
Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, totally infallible and this belief give to them a strong sense of rightness to what they do. I honestly don't dislike Evangelicals, my uncle is one. I am not a church-going person, but I do consider myself moral and I am frightened that a religious group is getting very close to being able to legislate it's morals and force it's beliefs on everyone.


The "threat" of Evangelicals taking over and forcing their religious beliefs on all our citizens is not just overblown leftist fantasy, it is irrational. I for one, would happily abandon a political party that attempted to do that, but it would never come to that. There is too much religious diversity in our country for any monolithic theocratic revolution to ever occur, the freedom to practice one's own religion being too firmly rooted in our reason for being, despite our ethical/moral values being informed by Judeo-Christian ideals.

And Messy has a point - this is an equal-opportunity country when it comes to intolerance.

You need not live in fear.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #11 Top
Do the math. By your statistics, Evangelists make up only 10% of the voting populace. And that makes them roughly 6% of the adult populace! And they are going to control the country? No more so that blacks, who represent 12% of the populace, or Hispanics (12% also). You theory is severly flawed. But you do come across as an evangelical bigot. They have a right to their opinion the same as you. Does not make them more right, or more wrong, just diffferent opinions.
Reply #12 Top
Hey, I have NOT been burnt at a stake nor even being threaten with harm from Christians for being an Occultists who associates with Wiccans, Buddhists, etc.

I did however suffer vocal persecution under Clinton but ever since 9/11 they backed off...I wonder why...hmm...yes, I wonder...what could it be...oh well I am sure I will remember why...just not right now...

... Plinko!!
Reply #13 Top
The math doesn't have to be that they are more than 50% of the votes. All a group has to do is be a solid bloc that will consistantly give money to and vote for a party to gain favor in voting and policies from it. Look at the influence companies, unions, etc.have on each party. It's not how many people you know, it's do you know the right people. If the Evangelicals are able to stay this organized and mobilized they will be a force to be reckoned with. They were approximately 11.5 million of Bush's 59 million votes. He won by 3.6 million. Do you think he could have won without their overwhelming support? Do you believe that candidates from either party don't pay back those who put them in power?
Reply #14 Top
Reply By: citahellion
Psikotic,

I don't see murder as something that is strictly "the Lord's law"....


citahellion - But that statement is based on you belief that life begins at conception, while others believe it begins at the point the fetus is viable as a life. What do you base your assumption that abortion is murder on? YOUR faith and morals.
Reply #15 Top
Grim, I would assume that you're being left alone since 9/11 because the nation came together after the attack and because they're a lot more afraid of muslims than you right now - not some kind of new-found tolerance.
Reply #16 Top
They were approximately 11.5 million of Bush's 59 million votes. He won by 3.6 million. Do you think he could have won without their overwhelming support? Do you believe that candidates from either party don't pay back those who put them in power?


You can pick lots of bogeymen out of the voting statistics - any arbitrarily defined group of about 4 million voters would do.

This is an irrational fear. You won't be reading about the Salem Witch Trials being reinstated anytime soon.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #17 Top
"Let's stop allowing Christians to vote, but let's also stop allowing Pagans and Buddhists from voting too. They bother me too. Atheists too. Muslims too. Let's place our hands in good hands: Scientologists!"


ARE YOU STUPID? IGNORANT? YOu calim that republicans are trying to change that constitution what about not allowing people who this contry was founded with vote, that makes NO sense at all.
Reply #18 Top

Reply #17 By: Evan Trivett - 11/6/2004 10:57:14 AM
ARE YOU STUPID? IGNORANT? YOu calim that republicans are trying to change that constitution what about not allowing people who this contry was founded with vote, that makes NO sense at all.



What are you going on about? Your post makes no sense!
Reply #19 Top
I reread this and you guys are pretty much right. It was my first article and I did a lousy job of articulating and supporting my point and I pretty much apologize to you all for having posted it. I shall now hang my head in shame.
Reply #20 Top

you have no reason to apologize.  first of all, there may be some confusion here.  drmiler is slappin evan trivett--not you (possibly not grasping the fact that theyre both on the same side unless hell suddenly froze over in the past hour).  secondly, despite arguments to the contrary, its a problem when a political party connects with a large group of coalesced or organized voters whether theyre union members or christians.  whether its a bigger problem when it involves religion may be up for discussion but clearly power can and will almost always be used to exploit a situation in hopes of more power.  

Reply #21 Top

Reply #20 By: kingbee - 11/7/2004 2:58:26 AM
you have no reason to apologize. first of all, there may be some confusion here. drmiler is slappin evan trivett--not you (possibly not grasping the fact that theyre both on the same side unless hell suddenly froze over in the past hour).


I ain't slappin no one. Read the sentence he worte and tell me what it says.
Reply #22 Top
Do the math. By your statistics, Evangelists make up only 10% of the voting populace. And that makes them roughly 6% of the adult populace! And they are going to control the country? No more so that blacks, who represent 12% of the populace, or Hispanics (12% also). You theory is severly flawed. But you do come across as an evangelical bigot. They have a right to their opinion the same as you. Does not make them more right, or more wrong, just diffferent opinions.


Your statistics are flawed. According to the exit polls, white evangelicals made up 23% of those who voted. That's pretty close to the figure of 22% that said the most important issue they are voting on are moral issues. That 23% of the voting population is now demanding to dicate to the rest of the nation is supposed to think. They can garner that support because any large block like that can effect any election. They also state they are not interested in any compromise. You are either for them or against them.

Link

Let's play with some numbers. Approximately 120 million people voted in this election. 23% of that is 27.6 million. Of that 27.6 million their votes went 21.5 million to Bush, 5.8 million to Kerry, a difference of 15.7 million votes in an election decided by about 3.5 million votes. In other words, white evangelicals accounted for over 36% of every vote Bush got. The evangelical right dominated this election. If they had voted as the other 77% of the population voted then Bush would have received 49.86 million votes to Kerry's 62.05 million votes, it would have been a Kerry landslide. Let's say the numbers are a little more balanced and Bush pulls 65% of the evangelical number, its Bush pulling 55.9 million votes to 59.81 to Kerry.

Are the two candidates so different that such a difference should exist? Should this issue alone be so important to the electorate? Both candidates stated that the are against gay marriage, that marriage is between a man and a woman. Bush called for an ammendment to the Constitution while Kerry did not deem it necessary because of the DOMA. Kerry supports civil unions, I have hear Bush does as well but can find no documentation to support it.

Bush will do nothing to change the abortion stalemate in this country. It too much of an issue for Republicans to drop. If they can continue to bring out their constituency by keeping this issue alive they will. So if Bush will do nothing to change the status quo, doesn't he in effect support a woman's right to choose as is the law of the land at this time?