majority now says "get religion out of politics"

[Two Americas]

More Americans Question Religion's Role In Politics

Many of us have been saying that there seems to be a conservative drift among liberals and progressives on social issues, and a few of us have been saying that we see the general public drifting to the Left. I am convinced that the recent election was a thorough rejection and repudiation of Reganomics and the religious right, yet it is liberals and progressive who are now mysteriously most resistant to that.

I found a Pew Research survey from right before the election that confirms this. While the people are moving to the left, progressives and liberals are moving to the right.

More Americans Question Religion's Role In Politics

Some Americans are having a change of heart about mixing religion and politics. A new survey finds a narrow majority of the public saying that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues.

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center reveals that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view.

<snip>

...the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are - from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.

<snip>

...among people who rate gay marriage as a top voting issue, the percentage saying that churches should stay out of politics soared from 25% in 2004 to 50% currently

A majority of those with less than a college education now oppose churches expressing their political views, an 11 point increase since 2004.

...nearly half (45%) of those who attend religious services weekly or more now say that churches should keep out of politics, up 14 points in four years.

46% of Republican Protestants now express reservations about church involvement in politics, up from 28% in 2004. Even among white evangelical Republicans, more than one-third (36%) now want churches to keep out of politics, up 16 points since 2004.

Meanwhile, fewer liberals think that religion should be kept out of politics.

In 2004, liberals were twice as likely as conservatives (62% vs. 30%) to say churches should keep out of political matters. Today, the ideological divide is much smaller, with 57% of liberals and 50% of conservatives holding this view.

While over 3/4 of the people now say they are dissatisfied with the conditions in the country, and the economy is given as the most important concern, both abortion and same sex marriage are becoming less and less important to conservatives and religious people.

Two social issues are at the bottom of the list in terms of perceived importance to voters: abortion was mentioned by 39% as very important, down eight points from October 2004, while gay marriage is mentioned by 28%, compared with 32% during the closing weeks of the 2004 campaign.

The economy continues to lead the list of issues voters say will be very important to their candidate choice this fall. Fully 87% of voters say the economy will be very important to their vote this fall, greater than the proportion of voters citing the economy as very important in October 2004 (78%). And while terrorism, Iraq and other issues rivaled the economy in importance four years ago, the economy rates 10 points higher than any other issue this year.

Support for faith based initiatives is falling dramatically among conservatives, but increasing among liberals.

Republican support for groups applying for government funds to provide social services has slipped since 2001. For instance, 72% of Republicans favored Protestant churches applying for funds in 2001, but that has fallen to 60% today. And the share that says charitable organizations with a religious affiliation should apply for funds dropped from 75% to 68% over the same time period. Meanwhile, Democrats are somewhat more likely to back groups applying for funds now than they were in 2001. Generally, Democrats today are at least as likely as Republicans to support religious groups applying for federal funding to provide social services.

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1361


The power that the leaders of the religious right is in free fall, since the religious right has always been an extreme right wing political movement masquerading as a religion, in my view, and if the people are saying "get religion out of politics" that is clearly a refection of diminished influence and power of those leaders.

Why, then, would Democratic party politicians breathe new life into the careers of those spreading bigotry and hatred to advance the power of the religious right, when the people are moving the opposite direction?

Looking at these numbers, I now think that there is a core of right wing supporters among the public, about 20-25%, om both social and economic issues, which is similar to the 20-some percent still supporting President Bush. That means that 75-80% of the people support left wing positions.

Why would Democrats be moving to the right in this environment?

Increasingly, the people no longer care what the leaders of the religious right have to say.

Why do more Democrats now care about what they have to say?

[Sub Atomic]

1. I'd like to Sofa King rec your post

[Two Americas]

3. thanks

I didn't think anyone was still up, and I have been editing and adding to the post.

A "Sofa King rec?" lol

:hug:

With my employment and housing situation, any kind of bed sounds pretty good, lol. If it came with a "rec" so much the better.

[bluedawg12]

2. The country has swung left, so we swung right.

Makes sense in Bizzaro world.

[ReadTomPaine]

4. This is because religion is the mistress to power in American politics...

Where power goes, she follows.. neither side is immune. This has less to do with what the populace wants and more to do with what can be gained by relationships with religious organizations - access to networks, money, influence over captive audiences and more.

If you really want to see this in action, take a look at how sitting senior political figures from both parties attend Sun Myung Moon's bizarre unification church coronation ceremonies and give him respect, gifts and more. This is an especially clear example, as Moon is radioactive to the American populace, but that doesn't stop current and former presidents, senators and congressmen from either associating or doing business and consultation with his Church. He literally crowned himself 'Messiah' in the Senate offices in DC.

Here's a letter from Charlie Rangel, of all people...


Some additional photos as an illustration of the above:



At its heart, this isn't about what people think. The motives are much deeper and often much darker.

[Two Americas]

6. that's it, isn't it?

They are moving toward power, whether it is the religious right or Wall Street, even though the people have rejected the religious right and Wall Street. It is all about the "winners" and now they are winners.

I can remember Republicans saying after Bush was elected "we won! Get over it!" Now I am hearing that from Democrats.

[ReadTomPaine]

7. Indeed it has come from many on this very site...

"It is all about the "winners" and now they are winners." It's a powerful force that you describe and similar to the connections mentioned above. I wrote about this here back in 2003 (My goodness, is it really that long ago?)

Here's a clip from that piece that still retains its relevance in this discussion, as well as several other issues that have been making the rounds of late:

... "Policies that supported previously bedrock Democratic principles were now tolerated for the legacy votes they would bring, but the DC culture had become one of cracked crab and caviar. In such an environment, it’s not acceptable to talk about things like class warfare, civil rights and blue collar working issues. The fact that many people ‘on the street’ seemed to respond to those issues was of less consequence than the fact that money would flow freely into a campaign. The promise of votes, in that context, seems of less importance than the certainty of cash with which to proactively attack and defeat an opponent. In other words, the left adopted the right’s effective tactic of ridicule and character assassination, demoralizing the voter base of their opponents rather than mobilizing their own.

Reagan was unassailable, but Democrats made steady inroads elsewhere during this phase and when the first Bush presidency arrived on its back Democrats sensed his weakness and attacked. Dan Quayle is a perfect example of this. They were very successful, and we all remember how sweet that defeat was, but it was a bitter pill obtained at the cost of sacrifice of the primacy of the Democratic base ideological platform. Those on the left, it was assumed, would simply vote Democrat no matter how centrist or even slightly right of center the candidate was, as the alternative was voting for a Republican.

Most critically, leading Democrats, now fully evolved into the DLC-flavored variety, underplayed the very importance of these core constituencies. Why support these ‘long haired crackpots’ when the congressional elections and the White House had been won without courting them? Worse than assumed votes, they were thought of as irrelevant. An embarrassing liability.

The problem with this strategy however is now apparent and reflected in this very discussion. Without a core system of developed and time evolved values, the establishment of the Democratic Party has a threadbare platform of pseudo right corporatism and lip service to core progressive ideals. It is very hard to sound dynamic and portray that ‘fire in the belly’ so critical in mobilizing a base of supporters when your party’s platform is half abandoned or not your own. It’s impossible to lead with conviction when you don’t believe in what you say.

This is why Democrats such as the late Paul Wellstone and now Howard Dean have enjoyed such a following- they are reaching back in time to an earlier form of Democrat in the way in which they reach people and select issues. Also note that they are outside-the-beltway politicians less subject to its social vicissitudes. So absorbed in the attack/ridicule culture is the current Democratic party that rather than embrace a winning method from their own Howard Dean, they actually spend precious dollars discrediting him. Like a donkey that has ground corn to meal all its life, they continue to walk in a circle long after they are unhitched from the pole and are now faced at this late date with a paucity of options.

The mindset of the beltway is very powerful and persuasive. It can cut all but the strongest among us down to a manageable size, even you and me. Bill Clinton’s gift was his ability to use that mindset in a personal fashion, emulating in his office what the Democratic Party should have been attempting to replicate throughout the capital. Instead, confident in victory, they assumed the mantle the Republicans left aside and became less accessible to their constituencies rather than use the hard won accumulated power and capital to build similar institutions on the left to carry them into the next century."

There is a danger that the party is considering these same choices once again. Let's hope a wiser course is selected this time around.

[JohnnieGordon]

5. Obama will tug that dark blue "keep out" line back down, if he can

He's hellbent on injecting as much religion (specifically Christianity) into politics as he can, and the most loathsome variety, as exemplified by Warren and McClurkin.

[tbyg52]

8. This atheist thanks you for posting this here. nt

[Starry Messenger]

9. k & r

[donco6]

10. I can't figure it out either.

Seriously. No idea.