Evangelicals and Democrats

Is there a particular reason that “Black: Other” are grouped together? Are most of these people members of Evangelical or Mainline denominations? I’m mainly wondering because I can’t tell if one would expect “Black: Other” to be more or less theologically conservative than “Black: Afro Am”. (Based on the voting trends they look slightly more conservative, though that could easily be because of a lessened racial affiliation, even if they were mostly Unitarians and Quakers.) I’m guessing the three empty spots in the diagrams are places where there wasn’t enough data available? Are these data gathered from exit polls, or some other survey method? It seems a bit surprising to me that there wasn’t enough data to talk about black protestants that never attend church, though there was enough to talk about white conservative protestants that never attend church. But I guess there are just a lot more white conservative protestants than black people in general.

Anyway, quite interesting!

“Black – other” appears to be contrasted with “Black – Afro-American”. The distinction is obscure, and both groups poll about the same, so it appears not to matter that they might instead be mixed, South Asian, Australian or whatever.

Claims of the literal truth of the Bible can’t and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Who can claim the literal truth of poems or proverbs? It shouldn’t be news that pollsters harvest earnestly expressed pieties, or that there’s a whole lotta metaphorical exegesis going on.

Even the most devout believer will generally yield to common sense and shrug off the consequent cognitive dissonance.

Brett, maybe instead of Black people shaking off the notion that Republicans are racist, the Republicans should stop being racist. Or do you really think the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina — not just the immediate incompetence, but also the complete dropping of it from the federal legislative agenda and the focus on giveaways to developers and mega-corporations instead of the actual people affected in the months since — doesn’t tell us anything about how Republicans feel toward Blacks?

PZ Myers slapped this nonsense down quite nicely the other day. Amy Sullivan is basically a Mickey Kaus who knows how to write.

All the more reason for the Democratic party to continue its tentative work at recruiting candidates—not always, and not everywhere, but where it would matter—who are capable of joining a religiously conservative take on certain social issues with progressive political causes.

Yeah, that’s the ticket. Hasn’t “Just like the Republicans, only not quite so, y’know, Republican about it” been a consistently winning formula for the Democrats?

it’ll show those on the bubble—both African-American and otherwise—that they don’t have to set their religious and social hopes aside when voting Democratic.

“Don’t fret, People of the Bubble–you can vote Democratic and still hate homos!” Beautiful.

How big is the moderate white evangelical population in Florida, Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania and the other big swing states? Isn’t that what matters most (solely?) when considering election statergies?

“A targeted effort by the Democratic Party to appeal to them could produce victories in the short term”
Like what? Is Godtalk and some Bible classes enough to attract those she calls moderate evangelicals? Lieberman cannot possibly be accused of being hostile to religion, ran as vice and that hasn’t shaken off the reputation. What would be sufficient? She mentions abstinence (alongside birth control) but I gather evangelicals only want abstinence, birth control encourages teens to have sex and all that. Any data on how much abstinence classes reduce unwanted pregnancies? She asserts that it does when she says :”plan that would truly reduce abortions”.

uncle kvetch,

I’m not so sure. If you divide issues into social issue and economic issues, what the Democrats consistently do is talk liberal on both, but act conservative on economic, and not-too-liberal on social issues. Maybe talking less liberal (ie more in synch with how they act — and all I care about is how they act) on social issues would make it easier for them to win conservative support on economic issues. This assumes, of course, that they ahve some will to act more liberal on economic issues, which is a big assumption.

Think about the fuss the Kerry campaign made over stem-cell research. They, well, to put it kindly, they misled people about how soon it might actually do some good. In doing so they pissed away who knows how many RC voters by making a start-of-life issue a major part of their campaign. Does ANYONE think that stem cell research holds out greater promise for the health prospects of the 50% least advantaged Americans than better public health measures, less inequality, and universal primary care? Does anyone think that making a fuss about stem cell research before the election enhanced Kerry’s ability to do whatever he wanted about it if he had subsequently won? (sorry, that’s me on my hobby horse).

Gay marriage would, in my view, by a real and substantial gain, one worth making a fight about if you are really serious about it. But again, you can choose how you talk about it. I’d like to see some heterosexual and un-divorced Democrats defending gay marriage and pointing out very forcibly to religious conservative constituencies the hypocrisy of people who have themselves divorced opposing or voting against gay marriage, and pointing out, too, that the Republicans are in the party that even more than the Democrats opposes the preconditions for successful family life. I do realise that because the Dems are so deepply implicated in so much of what is wrong they cannot do this easily.

So I guess I’m moderately attached to a kind of Sullivan-lite alternative; be a bit more strategic about when and how you choose to piss these people off, and only do it when what is at stake is some real policy pay-off (like gay marriage).

I should add that I think its pretty irrelevant what someone like me (or you) think about what the Dems should do; its not our party, and it doesn’t want us around!

If blacks ever shake off the “racist Republican” meme, and start voting accoring the their beliefs, especially on social issues, the Democratic party is toast.

Fortunately, arrogant white ‘libertarians’ like Brett ensure that it’s a big ‘if’.

Uncle Kvetch,

“Amy Sullivan is basically a Mickey Kaus who knows how to write.”

I don’t think she’s that bad, but I do agree she makes the whole thing seem a little too easy and obvious. It’s not as simple as just asking Democrats to up the religious rhetoric while speaking to particular audiences, what Michael Kazin called the “dishonest pandering of the last two Democratic nominees for president”; there has to be a rethinking of the ground upon which traditional Democratic arguments are advanced.

“Hasn’t ‘Just like the Republicans, only not quite so, y’know, Republican about it’ been a consistently winning formula for the Democrats?”

Considering the voting data on church-going, lower and middle-class Southern whites, Bill “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare” Clinton would appear to be Exhibit #1 in favor of this position (in contrast to the two examples cited above).

“‘Don’t fret, People of the Bubble—you can vote Democratic and still hate homos!’ Beautiful.”

I must admit, I wasn’t aware that homophobia is the be-all and end-all of anything that could possibly lead someone–white or black–to affirm certain socially conservative positions, or even cast votes for socially conservative candidates on occasion.

PZ Myers is great at tracking insane anti-evolution sentiment, but not exactly the adviser I’d choose for the Democrats on reaching out to (and keeping) religious voters. In some alternative universe in which a large majority of the US voting public were atheists, then perhaps I’d consider him.

Perhaps I’m biased by having once gone to church with her (a church that has plenty of gay members, by the way), but I think Amy Sullivan’s ideas are more about rhetoric and choices of focus rather than about “Republican-lite” policies. Where is she suggesting reaching out to homophobes?

“If you don’t understand that misogyny and homophobia are the twin streams of sewage that fertilize the Christian Right movement in all its permutations, you don’t understand much of anything.”

I also wasn’t aware that “someone [who affirms] certain socially conservative positions, or even cast[s] votes for socially conservative candidates on occasion”–which is, you will note, what I wrote–and “the Christian Right movement in all its permutations” are identical. They don’t appear to be such to me. The “Christian right movement” I take to be a group of mobilized quasi-theocrats who are about as likely to stop voting Republican as George Bush is to admit mistakes. The former group, by contrast, appears to include some of the latter, but isn’t–at least, not if the data Kieran has supplied is any indication–identical to it.

Though of course, I suppose as usual it all comes down to definitions. If you think the only possible reason on earth that anyone just might circumscribe the practice of abortion is because they hate all women everywhere (because, of course, that’s what the Bible teaches), well then, it’s all settled: you’ve nicely defined all those evangelicals which Kieran graphed for us as completely beyond the Democratic pale. What a great kick-off for Ohio in 2008.

I think Russell has a point here. “Will and Grace” could not be as big a TV series as it was without picking up at least material audience share in the demographic described.

On the other hand, “Arthur”, with post number 11 above has obviously won “comment of the week”, so I can’t be bothered saying any more.

And I want to add one more thing. I once held a “moderate” position that included a lot of discomfort with abortion and a Clintonian insistence that it be rare as well as safe and legal. Then I started asking myself- as someone with training in developmental biology- what justified that discomfort in the most uncomplicated case, that of an early embryo which only a lunatic could regard as anything even close to a fully-fledged person. When I really examined my conscience for unexamined assumptions I found a lot of stuff about women, sex and “responsibility” which I found quite unattractive when I really brought it out into the light of day and looked at it. Others might benefit from a similar self-examination.

Oh, they don’t hate women- as long as they’re sexless. Let them have- worse, enjoy- “unauthorized” sex, then you’ll see the hatred…

Kerry pushed stem cell research because it was a winning issue for the Democrats, and it still is.

I think there are a lot of things here that need to be disentangled. Whatever Democratic candidate appears is not going to agree with me or anyone else on this thread on every issue. So there will be some disagreement on issues and some disagreement on cultural markers and sensitivity.

I’m all for sensitivity to religious groups, since that’s where the votes are. But I see no evidence of insensitivity to religious groups by Democratic candidates. Kerry and Gore both were very respectful of religion, and it got them nowhere.

The cultural referent may be needed to save us, in which case the Democrats are doomed to nominating Southern Baptist governors as their candidates for President. Maybe that is what it takes.

As for issues, I don’t understand the “conservative cultural” argument. As far as I can tell from what I’ve read from RAF before, it comes down to abortion, abstinence, and prayer in schools.

I don’t understand why those issues are more important to RAF, as opposed to all the other issues out there, like capital punishment, poverty, unjust wars, divorce, etc. which are all also condemned by religions, but there you go.

I don’t believe religious conservatives when they say that if the Democrats became pro-life, they would vote for them. They would just demand more, and most of what I see coming from them is to dismantle separation of church and state. Abstinence education doesn’t work, as numerous studies have shown. So the only reason to waste government money on it is as a sop to people’s religious beliefs. Prayer in schools is pure establishment of religion, and is actually blasphemous in certain religions, so I don’t see how that could work either.

If that is the only thing keeping you from voting for the Democrats, then it seems the more rational thing to do is vote for a more economically liberal, church-establishment party and stop voting for the Republicans.

If one decides to keep voting for the Republicans solely because of chursh-state and abortion, that says that you consider those issues more important by far than everything else, and in that case, you have an essential disagreement with a lot of the Democratic base. There is no way the Democrats will come your way.

Steve,

“[W]hen they admit (given the high rate of spontaneous abortions) that they worship the all-time mass murderer of babies….When I really examined my conscience for unexamined assumptions I found a lot of stuff about women, sex and ‘responsibility’ which I found quite unattractive when I really brought it out into the light of day and looked at it….Let them have–worse, enjoy–‘unauthorized’ sex, then you’ll see the hatred….”

Huh. Well, no one can say you don’t have strong feelings about all this. For my part, I guess I just mulishly continue to doubt that a couple of millenia of argument and struggle over all sorts of beliefs and aspirations and convictions regarding women (and men) and sex (and family) and ‘responsibility’ (which, surprisingly enough, sometimes exists outside of scare quotes) can be clearly reduced to “unexamined assumptions” when confronted by the “light of day.” Part of the reason for that, surely, is that fact that despite about four decades of what I would like to think at least fairly regular self-examination, I still don’t quite see the faith of, say, the black preacher running the local Campus Crusade for Christ as consisting of nothing more or less than unexamined misogyny, homophobia, prudery, and hate. But then, admittedly, I’m somewhat biased.

“And if there were any Democratic candidates, officeholders, or party representatives who actually went around saying that, then you’d have a point, Russell. But they don’t, and you know it. So just what is it that you and Amy Sullivan are arguing?”

Uncle Kvetch,

I wasn’t talking to or about any Democratic candidates, officeholders, or party representatives when I wrote the passage you quote; I was responding to Steve. As for what Amy Sullivan and I agree upon (despite, as I mentioned above, the ways in which I think her approach to these issues is somewhat superficial), I think it can be summed up in my first comment: that “the Democratic party [should] continue its tentative work at recruiting candidates—-not always, and not everywhere, but where it would matter—-who are capable of joining a religiously conservative take on certain social issues with progressive political causes.” Consider Tim Kaine in Virginia as Exhibit #2 (going along with Exhibit #1, mentioned above).

“The Cuomo abortion position is an example of pussyfooting inconsistency. The Clinton abortion position is more respectable.”

Well put, Tim.

“As far as I can tell from what I’ve read from RAF before, it comes down to abortion, abstinence, and prayer in schools. I don’t understand why those issues are more important to RAF, as opposed to all the other issues out there, like capital punishment, poverty, unjust wars, divorce, etc. which are all also condemned by religions, but there you go.”

If it did come down to just those three things, Hektor, then I wouldn’t have voted for Nader (twice) and Kerry. As for “capital punishment, poverty, unjust wars, divorce, etc.,” try here, here, here, and here.

(End of ridiculous self-promoting linkfest.)

I would suggest that an additional problem for the Democratic party when it comes to courting religious voters is that a lot of religious voters, including people like Amy Sullivan, consider it hostile to religion to not allow further blurring between the lines of church and state.

I’m a liberal, and I’m not religious. I think everyone in this great country should be free to worship as they see fit, provided it doesn’t hurt other people. I am absolutely opposed to increasing the role religion plays in governing our country. I don’t think that’s hostility, I think it’s good sense.

capable of joining a religiously conservative take on certain social issues with progressive political causes

Translation, Russell, please. I’d really appreciate it if you can offer some specifics here. Firstly, what does “a religiously conservative take on certain social issues” look like, from where you’re sitting?

And secondly, does it really surprise you that, as a gay man, when I hear phrases like “a religiously conservative take on certain social issues” coming from my ostensible allies in the political sphere, I tend to get just a tad antsy?

kcindc, focusing on “religious” issues IS allowing them to control the topics of discourse. Liberals do have strong values, particularly having to do with fairness (especially to people who “work hard and play by the rules”) and opportunity, that have very broad appeal. My analysis of Clinton’s success is that that is where his fundamental appeal lay. (He always had a reputaion as a slippery fellow who was unlikely to achieve much of a comfort level in the minds of hard-core “values” voters.) Taking time and energy away from stressing those things in order to make lame attempts to play on the Republicans’ court will never fly outside the fantasy world of people like Sullivan. And as a malign side product it contributes to the creeping theocratization of America.

Russell, I suspect that your preacher, opposed to abortion as he may be, is not nearly as fixated on abortion as most white evangelicals. In fact from my own observations I’m pretty sure of it. So by bending over backwards on abortion we sacrifice core principles to do relatively little to appeal to him, while hardcore white evanagelicals remain our sworn enemies regardless. Brilliant strategy…

Steve, I’m opposed to the creeping theocratization as well. I’d like to see “In God We Trust” removed from the money, but I recognize that there’s no way that’s going to happen in today’s environment. I disagree with Sullivan about “faith-based” government programs (though that doesn’t seem to be what people are reacting to here). But I am concerned about Democrats’ continuing to allow Republicans to paint them as the antireligious party when the vast majority of US voters think of themselves as religious.

Harry B, you seem to be badly misinterpreting the “stem cell research” strategy of Kerry’s campaign. Stem cell research is popular with most people, but unpopular with the socially conservative Republican base. So the Dems should make a big deal about it; either Bush panders to his base and loses some middle voters, or Bush moderates and alienates his base. I can’t imagine that playing up this issue actually cost Kerry net votes. If anything, that was the sort of thing the Dems should be doing all the time, rather than waiting for September of a Presidential election year.

It’s like the equivalent of passing husband notification laws for abortion, but not as odious (from my perspective, which is of course the correct one).

They mostly aren’t willing to say that too clearly because they take lots of campaign contributions from some of the biggest shafters (a pox on Dems who voted for the bankruptcy bill, for example), but that’s yet another problem

Indeed, and not to pile on Russell, but that’s another problem I have with the underlying assumption here: with hot-button social issues out of the way, the Democrats could finally build a true progressive base around economic issues. The rub is that I see precious little evidence that the current leadership of the Democratic Party is even interested in a truly progressive economic agenda at this point.

Reading Amy Sullivan in this light, I fear the worst of all possible worlds: both parties dominated by moralizers, prudes, and finger-wagging scolds…the only difference being that one of them wants to raise the minimum wage by 30 cents an hour.

It’s not because they are white or because they are evangelicals. It’s because they are freakin’ hillbillies, hicks, kulaks. “White evangelicals” is a correlation, not causation.

It is because they take seriously the belief that a fetus is a human being and that abortion isn’t about sexual morality. Bullshit, Anthony, they do no siuch thing. If they did, the SD law, for example, would simply equate abortion with first-degree murder. If they did, they would be making frantic calls for medical research into the causes of miscarriages. If they did, they would all openly defend abortion-clinic bombers- how could a decent person oppose the killing of gruesome mass murderers? There are all kinds of indications that that’s merely the rhetoric and not the motivation. Frankly I question your motivation too.

Steve Labonne wrote: “Russell, I suspect that your preacher . . .”

If Russell has acquired a preacher, I’m going to have to report that to his bishop.

Religious Conservative Christians tend to assist the poor through their churches. Until you grasp this fact, you are just pissing them off. There is an action called tithing. It starts at 10% of your gross income. Every time someone talks about raising taxes to help the poor, provide healthcare, housing, etc through the government, the religious conservative is thinking about the tithe. Put up or shut up. Democrats are not going to pick up votes advocating for increased government intervention unless the advocates are willing to spend a proportionate amount of their own money. It is the Cosby effect. He can talk about failures of blacks in education, not because he is black, but because he spends millions of his own money trying to improve it.

Looks like one of my posts (#32) was blocked by moderation for a while, and the whole thread raced forward in the meantime. Let me try a few quick responses before the end of the day…

#35: “She’s not talking about winning over the religious right, or even winning a majority of religious voters–just regaining some of the people who voted for Carter or Clinton but have been listening too much lately to the words of Republican Jesus.”

Well put, kcindc. Granted that the whole “moral values” issue was moderately overplayed in the 2004 aftermath. But c’mon: if trying to figure out how to bring 10% or 20%–who knows, maybe even 30%!–of the poor and lower-middle class evangelical and Catholic white vote back over to the Democratic party isn’t important, why have Larry Bartels and Thomas Frank and a dozen other people been tearing themselves apart over it? This isn’t a pie-in-the-sky debate over the possibility of engineering the overnight resurrection of a Bryanesque, liberal, progressive Christianity (as much as someone like me might wish it); this is, as I said in my first comment, about continuing a tentative, important project, one pursued in hopes that church-going African-Americans won’t continue to occasionally feel taken for granted, and that the Republicans will not be able claim white evangelicals as their own until kingdom come.

#36: “Firstly, what does ‘a religiously conservative take on certain social issues’ look like, from where you’re sitting? And secondly, does it really surprise you that, as a gay man, when I hear phrases like [that] coming from my ostensible allies in the political sphere, I tend to get just a tad antsy?”

Some of the links I stuffed in #32 might give you something of an answer to your first question, Uncle Kvetch; basically, I want to do what I can to connect certain religious and populist views on marriage and family to matters like abortion, welfare, education, etc., because–besides the fact that I think they can contribute to building a more egalitarian and virtuous society–you’re less likely to have extremist reactions (like the SD law, for example) as a backlash. And regarding your second question, no, it doesn’t surprise me at all. As that long exchange following Belle Waring’s old SSM post proved, for quasi-traditional like myself, this is terribly divisive issue. Which is why I’d like to think I’ve always presented my point of view in regards to this matter both on a high level of generality and with some humility and respect, though I suppose that’s in the eye of the beholder.

Russell, we obviously overlapped…I’ll withdraw what I wrote above about “specifics” until I’ve had a chance to look at your links. Thanks.

#38: “Russell, I suspect that your preacher, opposed to abortion as he may be, is not nearly as fixated on abortion as most white evangelicals. In fact from my own observations I’m pretty sure of it. So by bending over backwards on abortion we sacrifice core principles to do relatively little to appeal to him, while hardcore white evanagelicals remain our sworn enemies regardless.”

That’s one possibility, Steve. Another possibility is that some–definitely not all, probably not most, but some–of the white evangelical preachers who know and perhaps even work with that black preacher at various revivals will be somewhat more open to the sort of priorities by which he approaches his congregation–priorities based in scriptures they share and even kind of agree upon–if they realized that at least a couple of the issues that truly rally their support–such as abortion–weren’t definitely associated with just one political party. Which possibility you prefer kind of depends, I suppose, on just how much credit you’re willing to grant white evangelicals, and how seriously you’re willing to take (some of) their religious views. If one’s reigning assumption is that they’re idiots, hung up on fetuses and other nonsense like that, well then of course you wouldn’t want the Democratic party to move in that direction. (And which is why we’re having arguments like this in the first place.)

#43: “Come, take my hand, join ‘us,’ they hate you. Come, now!, take my hand, you cannot resist!, give in!”

Admittedly, bigmacattack, whenever I pull my Christian socialist shtick, they look at me pretty funny. I haven’t felt the hate yet though. Perhaps they’re waiting to catch me alone.

#50: “If Russell has acquired a preacher, I’m going to have to report that to his bishop.”

Good one, Nat. Though my bishop has a Barak Obama bumper sticker on his car and regularly reads The American Prospect; theological quibbles aside, I don’t think he can afford to excommunicate one of his few allies in the ward here.

#53: “Most of the tithing money goes into huge fancy churches, semi-legal political activism, and ‘helping’ people via missionary work. I’ve lived in Mississppi, I know exactly what the typical conservative, comfortable, white Southern Baptist in the Bible Belt is like.”

All I can say, Steve, is that I’ve lived in Starkville, MS, and Jonesboro, AR, have gotten to know a lot of people involved in Protestant churches at both places, and the picture you’re painting simply doesn’t fit my experience at all. I’ll grant you the mega-church thing: truly, those are a money-sucking eyesores. They are also mostly restricted to upper-class suburbs. The rural and older urban congregations I knew ran soup kitchens, did Katrina-relief drives, collected books for bankrupt libraries, supported refugee camps follow the tsunami, and a lot more. (Does that give them a complete pass, politically speaking? Not at all. I’m just adding some data points.)

If this has not yet been pointed out: it is possible to be deeply religious and yet embrace a package of social policies that are more closely associated with the Democratic Party. Not every religious person, black or white, is committed to the notion that they ought properly vote their religious beliefs. Indeed, those that do are a minority.

Russell,

Wow, voting for Nader twice. I don’t understand you at all then, considering Nader is about as far from religion as it is possible to be. I was under the impression that abortion was the core issue for you – if it isn’t, then I apologize.

Anthony,

I think you slipped up there a bit. The hard-core pro-life position also obviously rules out contraception (which you threw in there on your last comment), but that is not a position most people in the US hold. Most people, even ostensibly pro-life, are fine with contraception and regularly tell pollsters that. (The figures for Catholics are particularly illuminating here.) What you are talking about is a fringe position, supported by maybe 10-20 percent of the population at most. If that is the only consistent pro-life position, then most of the people who hold pro-life positions are hypocritical, and don’t agree with the reasons you state for being pro-life.

I see no comparable craziness on the left, especially since Roe v. Wade isn’t even close to the maximalist pro-choice position. I don’t see this equivalence you state, and just asserting it isn’t going to convince me.

My own feeling on this is that giving up on abortion will naturally lead to giving up on a lot of other things. So if abortion is given up for religious reasons, then we will have to give up protection of gay rights and many aspects of separation of church and state. It isn’t just a question of addition, either. If the Democratic party gives up on abortion rights, it may lose a lot of votes from women (single women especially) who are single issue voters, either by voting Green or not voting at all. Similarly, messing with separation of church and state will lose you Jewish votes, and the votes of other minority religions as well. Many secular voters will be turned off as well. Uncle Kvetch and Steve Labonne are similar examples of people who will be strongly turned off by a more religious outlook by the Democratic party.

One may argue that you pick up more votes than you lose, but that takes serious demographic and voting data.

Hello? Our presidential candidate in 2000- a good man who waged a poorly run campaign- actually won the popular vote. Our godawful empty-suit candidate in 2004 came within an eyelash of ejecting Bush from office. And yet some people think we’re so far from viability that I should be deperate enough to say, “Sorry, Uncle Kvetch, I’m going to have to be much more tolerant of people who don’t want you to exist; sorry, poor woman, you had sex, now you have to bear a child you didn’t want and can’t support- and who will probably grow up to have a miserable life- because I want to try to get more votes for Democrats from crazy religious misogynists”? That is some serious insanity, dudes. Please step away from the crack pipe.

As an ousider to the US, I reckon the best thing that could happen to the Democrats (and therefore the worst thing for Republicans) would be for Roe vs Wade to be overturned. And I reckon the Repubs realise this, which is why they haven’t been putting unequivocally anti-Roe people on the Supreme Court (they don’t let a little scruple like betrayal of their base stand between them and power).

Abortion would become a State, not Federal, issue. At the federal level people would vote more on their economic interest than their religious prejudice. And of course in many states the struggle for abortion would be a vote *winner* for the Dems.

But then, I’m not a woman with an unwanted pregnancy living in the Bible Belt. I’d no doubt fell differently about Roe vs Wade if I was.

Steve LaBonne – Your tarring over 100 million people based on the actions of one church. Where you a member of this church or did they just refuse to give you money. Your antidotal evidence lacks specifics. Having spent time in churches in 7 states, I can say your experience does not match mine. You are ignoring the point that conservative religious people are already giving away at least 10% of their gross income. It is impossible to advocate an increase in taxes if the individual or group is not making the same sacrifice. It translates to, “let me spend your money to take care of a problem that bothers me.”

James, do you have any statistics on the actual percentage of Christians, or conservative Christians, or evangelical Christians, or Republican Christians, or any other subgroup, who give away 10% or more of their gross income?

Democrats also lose any moral high ground that they think they may have in claiming that abortion opponents are extremists when some take the position of no conditions or restrictions at all on abortion such as parent notification, which the public generally seems to like.

Uh, the mushy middle position on abortion, while popular, is incoherent. The median position in the country is probably something like “women should have a right to an abortion, but abortion is icky, so I’d feel better if women had to notify their husbands before getting one. This helps me support the right to choose without making some sort of irresponsible hippy freak. Oh yeah, and please ban certain kinds of abortion procedures, that really helps me sleep at night even though the number of abortions will remain unaffected and women who get abortions will face greater risks.”

Moreover, the Democrats do play to this middle ground — remember “abortions should be safe, legal, and rare”? Hillary Clinton made a similar comment maybe a year ago and the press corps got all excited that a visionary Democratic politician had this new take on this issue.

The 1990’s happened, right? I didn’t just make all that stuff up? Compare Bill Clinton talking about religion to Bush.

You bring up gay rights. I will say bluntly that I would rather take the status quo on gay rights and expand economic justice for all rather than keep the status quo on the economy and expand gay right.

Unfortunately, the religious right does not accept “the status quo on gay rights.” If you think for one second that if we just backed off on same-sex marriage they would back off on us, you’re mistaken.

We have a declared candidate for the state senate in Ohio, and one for governor in Texas, who are running on platforms of “biblical” principles that include making homosexual acts a capital crime. Now, it seems to me that there can only be one proper response to this, and it doesn’t involve “outreach.” But then again I don’t want to alienate good people of faith, so I guess I’d better keep my mouth shut. Not being religious, I really have nothing meaningful to contribute to the discussion anyway. And so we move one step closer to a country in which “political debate” consists of Amy Sullivan debating some theocratic whackjob about what Leviticus really says, while I cheer her on (silently, of course) from the back row.

it seems obvious to me that if you want gay marriage legalized, you should work to slip it in the back door.

I have no idea what that means.

Stats from 2001

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:6jdcVM8mQ70J:www.independentsector.org/PDFs/GV01keyfind.pdf+united+states+giving+based+on+religious+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

Some points:

Households with people who attend religious services on a regular basis, at least once a month (54% of the respondents)gave more than twice as much annually as those who were notregular attendees ($2,151 and $867, respectively).

Volunteers were more likely than their non-volunteering counterparts to belong to a religious organization (75.6% vs.58.0%).

Households in which the respondent also volunteered gave sub-stantially more than households in which the respondent did not volunteer. For giving households, the average contributions were $2,295 from volunteers and $1,009 from non-volunteers.

Someone said something asking about why Democrats should be all hopeful about someday being able to get 10, 20, or even 30% of white conservative Christians. But look at Kieran’s graphs! They’re already getting more than 30% of the white conservative protestants who believe the Bible is the word of God!

A long time ago, this was about the fact that Christians in the US tend to vote more democratic than commonly thought. Kieran, in the case you are still reading, have you ever heard of a multivariate analysis of electoral distribution in the US identifying the main cause of variation. When this is done in France (not too often of course), the results quite consistently show that the main axis is spatial configuration (where you live) and the second axis the ration between what you earn and your educative level. I have a hunch that one would find the main first axis in the US, but I would be extremely curious to see such study.

An interesting study that I read a while ago (and cannot for the life of me find the cite on — where is GoogleBrain — maybe someone else here saw it as well) showed that when political positions that African-Americans otherwise agreed with were identified as Republican positions, support dropped like a rock. The Republican brand is so poisonous among black Americans that associating views with that party causes people to question the view, rather than wonder about party affiliation.

I think there are valid historical reasons for this chain of reasoning, but that is another post entirely.

Also, the Democratic party as it already exists today is far more open to different views on the law and abortions than the Republican party. Or did I miss the Republican Senate majority leader who is pro-choice? Saying that we Democrats need to be more open to diverse views is a Republican talking point designed to hide the fact that we already are.

It’s really nice to see the crypto-Republicans being smoked out here. All of you can go to hell, or the the Republican Party, if there’s still any distinction. The Democratic Party will never develop a coherent, winning message until it stops listening to those who want it to be the Republican-lite party. Brett especially cracks me up with the tired old white-victimology schtick.

I agree that the idea of quotas and preferences based on race (for disadvantaged racial minorities) is misguided, but I don’t see how it can be construed as racism.

It’s not racism, of course, it’s just a typical dopey feel-good policy.

How hard would it be to re-run the GSS data for the white-conservative group with some kind of simple income control (e.g. above/below median in a given year)?

It’s not so much high vs. low income as rural vs. urban. Rural people on average are always more reactionary, even the rural poor. They live in a small town and they don’t see any need for things like traffic lights, sewage processing plants and most of the other stuff the government provides.

Hektor Bim – Your associating the Catholic reasoning on abortion and birth control with all religious groups. To the best of my knowledge, Protestants are not apposed to birth control that prevents fertilization. Nor is this position contrary to the fundamental reasons most Protestants appose abortion. Many Catholics and Protestants appose abortion because they believe the soul enters the body at conception thus the cells are a person. Some groups believe it is a when the blood starts to flow. The fight over abortion is really about one group believing it is state sanctioned killing of an innocent person versus a second group believing it is about preventing state control of an innocent person’s body. The discussion is stuck on the extremes because neither side is budging from these fundamental positions.

P.S. More fuel for my rejection of your naive beleif that they really take the “life” rhetoric seriously rather than wanting to control women’s uteri- an elaboration of the “petri dish” thought experiment that I found as a comment to one of PZ Myers’s posts.

On the Evangelical Outpost — the home of willfully ignorant morons of the lowest stripe — the fertility clinic conundrum question was raised and it was fascinating to watch the fundies dodge.

Instead of a petri dish, put the embryos in a thermos and simply specify that a freezer is waiting outside the clinic.

They simply refused to answer, coming up will sorts of “objections” to the hypothetical.

It’s a really great way to expose the loonies.

You can even sharper it up — make it ten five year olds and a thermos filled with a 1000 frozen embryos.

Or 500 frozen embryos and 50 black teenagers.

Or 1 frozen embryos and 2 babies with incurable spina bifida.

Or 3 frozen embryos that were set aside because they comprised horrible genetic diseases and 3 comatose Jews.

Loads of fun with the fundies!!!!!!!

Right, jaybird, that’s what makes the quality of life for everyone in the US, especially below the Mason-Dixon line, so much better than in Scandinavia. Oh, wait…

What your anecdote is worth is that it’s another milestone in the Republicanization of NPR.

One hundred!

BTW. why are blockquotes listed as acceptable tags, if they’re not going to appear in the posts?

Steve Labonne,

You passed on the offer of a cause of racism, so how about this earlier post.

I freely admit to not understanding anything but I am curious.

Why, precisely is the right fertilized by misogyny and homophobia, that is, why are some people fertilized by these appeals and why are others just offended by the stench?

Why do people not behave as they ought?

Steve,

Thanks.

I just think both moral philosophy and social science are very, very difficult and sometimes people act like they are not.

Uncle Kvetch – From the article you sourced:

“Bruce Prescott of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists said in a Weblog that Mohler’s article shows how far Southern Baptists have come toward adopting the Roman Catholic view that sex is only for procreation.”

I’m f*ing fed up with this whole damn debate. I don’t see why religion or “lifestyle issues” should have anything to do with left vs. right politics. The core issues are the welfare state and government intervention to stop discrimination against women and minorities. That is all that matters.

Suppose, for a worst case scenario, abortion were illegal. If good leftist policies were in place than women who had unwanted babies could either a) get government benefits and state supplied childcare to take care of their kids and get on with their lives or, IMHO better, ditch their brats, and get on with their lives. Suppose religious groups could put up creches in parks for Christmas or have prayer in the public schools. Who the hell would care? Who would take it seriously? Just a bunch of silly bullshit–enjoy the Christmas display and mumble the prayers. Who takes any of this garbage seriously? Let those that do have it–big deal.

Promote affirmative action and the welfare state and screw everything else. All that matters is seeing to it that people, regardless of race and sex have money, financial security and good jobs. That’s the old time religion.

Doesn’t matter if it’s really an “attempt to correct and compensate for discrimination and segregation”, because it’s racist in both conception and execution.

Nothing says that racism has to be consciously malevolent. It just has to involve ignoring the particulars about people, because you think their race tells you all you need to know, and is sufficient excuse to treat them in a particular way.

You know, like compensating a recent immigrant from Jamaca for historical wrongs that happened to somebody else’s ancestors, because she’s the right skin color? AA and “diversity” policies are helping people who have nothing but skin color in common with the people who once suffered, at the expense of people who have nothing but skin color in common with the people who caused that suffering.

That IS racism, even if like most Democrats, your working definition of racism has a long list of riders and exceptions tacked onto it, to make sure that people you happen to be allied with are definitionally immune to being acknowleged as racist, no matter what the reality might be.

And you still haven’t explained that “trained monkey” remark away. ;)

logicguru, I respectfully but very strongly disagree. You are failing to take into account the potentially serious effects of pregnancy and childbirth on a woman’s health. Banning abortion would still be a gross violation of a woman’s right to control her own body, even if there were no economic consequences to bearing a child. You bet your sweet ass that women would still care, a lot.

bobcat, your “argument” doesn’t even reach the level of a strawman. There’s no point at which there’s a bright line; I certainly make a major distinction between an embryo that doesn’t even have a functioning nervous system and a near-term fetus, and there is clearly a continuum in between that has to be treated carefully as such. Oddly enough, the much-maligned Roe decision took this into account in a clear and constructive way which has held up well even as more is learned about human development. And nobody, not even those most fervently in favor of keeping the state out of the medical decision about late-term abortions, is in favor of them except when there is a grave threat to the mother’s life and health. Who are you to play God and set yourself up as the judge of such an awful choice as the one between a mother’s life and that of a near-term fetus? Both you and the politicians should mind your own God-damned business.

Consider also that the more difficult it is made to get a first-trimester abortion the more common later ones will be, legal or not. The exquisite consciences of buffoons like you apparently are easily satisfied by legal fictions regardless of what will actually be happening in the real world. Mockery from someone with such an undeveloped moral sense merely redounds on the mocker.

And those who knowingly set up the situation bear no responsibilty at all for it? That IS retarded.

“Depends on whether they’re simply presenting their positions and attemtping to persuade, or whether they have the gall to expect the state to use its monopoly of violence to enforce their positions. … Funnily enough, I know of none who do; only religious fanatics are into that sort of thing.”

Jeez. Donald Marquis, in his 1989 article, “Why Abortion is Immoral”, claims that it’s as seriously wrong as murder. I think it’s fairly obvious that he would move for criminalizing it. Then there’s also John Finnis, who thought it should be prohibited. And Peter Singer and Michael Tooley both think that infanticide should be legal, and would be in favor of using the state and “its monopoly of violence” to prevent people from preventing said infanticide.

Of course, Finnis is a Catholic, and so is a religious fanatic, and Marquis is an atheist, but I’m sure he knows Catholics, and so is probably a religious fanatic too.

Again, they can “consider” whatever they like, but they can go to hell if they try to FORCE others to act on intuitions with which many disagree (nobody disagrees that killing fully-fledged human beings is wrong- except when they do disagree, of course, in the cases of capital punishment and war, so much for “life” being an absolute trump- the important distinction here being the ability to survive outside another human being’s body).

But it’s useless to even try to argue with someone who so easily slides from holding a quite controversial ethical opinion to holding that it’s fine and dandy to try to force those who disagree to comply. I’d suggest getting your own confusions sorted out before trying to persuade anyone else. Looks like that’ll be a tall order, too.

Likewise, Steve. Gay marriage and economic egalitarianism are pretty contentious, so let’s not try to force anyone to have to put up with them.

See, by your reasoning, not only is it useless to argue with me, it’s useless to argue.

To the CT crew- I apologize for losing my temper. Please edit as you see fit.

Thanks for the kind words, Uncle Kvetch, and you’re right; “Nimrod” was too kind. For disagreeing with you and Steve, I should probably be beaten to death with a hammer. That’s the enlightened thing to do.

But just for the record, Steve didn’t apologize to me, he apologized “To the CT crew”; I doubt I’m included.

As for “putting up” with gay marriage, let me remind you that, according to Steve, “it’s useless to even try to argue with someone who so easily slides from holding a quite controversial ethical opinion to holding that it’s fine and dandy to try to force those who disagree to comply”–it doesn’t even matter what the ethical opinion is! So if a state legislature doesn’t want to allow gay marriage, then the federal government should make them do so. AND the federal government should avoid intervening, because that’s controversial too. Similarly, redistribution of wealth is a contentious ethical opinion, so damn straight no law should be put in place to enforce it.

My point, Bobcat, was that gay marriage was a perfectly ridiculous analogy to bring up in the context of your argument with Steve over abortion. People who believe, rightly or wrongly, that life begins at conception oppose abortion because they perceive it as a wrong committed against an innocent victim. There is no analogous “victim” in the gay marriage debate, unless you believe that the marriages or heterosexuals are somehow devalued or cheapened thereby. Which is, granted, an argument that is trotted out repeatedly…unfortunately, it’s utter nonsense.

I think the only problem with this “gay marriage effects nobody else” argument, is that the government is essentially certain to follow up legalizing gay marriage with a series of legal mandates requiring everybody else to treat the newly married as married. You know, for purposes such as insurance coverage?

Not an argument that’s likely to budge the advocates of gay marriage, but it does make clear that it’s not entirely devoid of effects on other people.

That’s a valid point, Brett. You’re right that it doesn’t “budge” me a milimeter, but it’s true that I was overstating the case.

Interestingly, the point you raised isn’t brought up by the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage, who tend to favor a much more vague and nebulous argument about its supposed pernicious effects on straight marriages, or on the institution as a whole. Still, it’s true that the establishment of SSM would have ramifications for more people than the couples involved.