Christian Century: Mainline showing shift to Democrats

[Rabrrrrrr]

I found this fascinating - I really thought that more mainliners were Democrats than this survey shows, which surprised me. But I've also only ever been affiliated with the UCC, which probably has a much higher skewing to Democrats than the rest of the mainline, so my perceptions are likely biased.

But I am glad to see that the numbers are going up.

http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=4983

Although mainline Protestant denominations for decades have been closely linked to liberal causes—civil rights, women's movements, abortion rights and antiwar protests—most of their members have been mainstays of the Republican Party.

However, a recent survey found that 2008 marks "a historic tipping point" in party identification among mainline Protestants, with 46 percent now calling themselves Democrats and 37 percent saying they are Republicans.

That was the first time Democrats outnumbered Republicans in mainline churches since the New Deal era prior to World War II

[supernova]

1. That's really what made me leave

the Presby Church in the end. While the national denom was mostly right (I felt) about a lot of things: opposing the Iraq invasion, sympathetic to the Palestinians to the point of being kicked out of Israel at one point, missionary work that places an emphasis on helping communities, not converting people, my local church members were just too regressive for me. It was stifling.

edit: If this article is accurate, then that's wonderful.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. I think that other factors trump denominational identity

If a church is located in a suburb in the South or Midwest, it's going to be more conservative than one in a large coastal city.

A plurality of Americans live in cookie-cutter suburbs, so they're going to be a natural audience for the "cut taxes" crowd. One of the dirty little secrets of American society is that so much of the growth of the suburbs was driven by racism, as much in the Midwest as in the South. Until the practice was made illegal in the mid 1960s, real estate agents used to go into urban neighborhoods and tell white homeowners that the neighborhood was "going colored."

Racism trumped logic in those cases. How could a neighborhood "go colored" if most of the homeowners stayed put? But once the real estate agents had "turned" a couple of neighborhoods, they could say, as in the case of Minneapolis, "Look what happened near Powderhorn Park. 'Negroes' moved in and property values fell."

Of course, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Panic selling led to rock-bottom prices, and the upwardly mobile African-Americans who were just trying to escape the ghetto and buy a nice house in a quiet neighborhood soon found themselves surrounded by decrepit rental housing. These developments naturally made it easier to the real estate agents to "turn" the next neighborhood, which was a double bonanza for them. They received commission on the sale of the urban white person's house and on the sale of a newly built house in a former cornfield.

Ten years later, the suburbanites would drive past their old block in the city and find that it was now part of the ghetto, the once tidy houses turned into eyesores owned by absentee landlords.

This would reinforce their racism.

In recent years, I've had heated discussions with people who insist that it's the mere presence of African-Americans, not panic selling, that causes property values to drop. I try reason: "If most of the white owners had stayed, the neighborhood would be nicely integrated now, because no one can move into an established neighborhood unless somebody else leaves."

Doesn't compute. Racism trumps logic.

Ironically, the first neighborhood to fight block busting in Minneapolis was Kenwood, an affluent neighborhood near downtown that is full of big old houses and big old trees. I'm sure the slumlords were just itching to get their hands on those houses. Fortunately, the property owners there were aware of the then-recent expose of blockbusting in Laurelton, Queens, NY, so they put out lawn signs that said "We're not leaving."

But anyway, I digress. With the suburbs populated at least somewhat by "white flight" types, any crypto-racist hints that "taxes just go to black welfare cases" tend to resonate. This trumps anything their national denomination does.

[kwassa]

3. I agree and disagree

Being a suburbanite, and proud of it, doesn't make me believe that the city vs. suburban split means anything, necessarily. This suburb I live in, and this entire suburban county of about 900,000 population is heavily Democratic, as is the state. Every election cycle has many Democratic political signs on resident's lawns. Montgomery County, Maryland.

Right next to us is Prince Georges County, Maryland, which is the most affluent predominantly African-American county in the country, though there are plenty of African-Americans in Montgomery, too. Real-estate block busting went on there in the 1960s, but the county now is heavily Democratic.

I've lived in suburbia, the big city for 17 years, and grew up in the country, and they all have their pluses and minuses. Suburbs can vary a great deal in their attractiveness, too. We live in a beautiful one.

I agree that denomination is not necessarily the key, but conservatives are more attracted to more conservative theologies, the more literalistic religious practices, so Baptists, and Pentecostals, etc. are more likely to attract them. The mainlines have been headed in a liberal direction for a long time, but even within a liberal diocese like this there can be liberal churches and conservative churches not very far away from each other. People are attracted to churches that reflect their point-of-view. Church culture can be very local.

I see it as more generational, with older mainline church members being more conservative, whereas younger conservatives leave the mainlines altogether for the allure of the mega-churches.

oh yes, and we toured Kenwood near Minneapolis, too. We almost moved to the Twin Cities a few years ago, and did an extensive real-estate search there.

[Kajsa]

4. Rabrrrr, I'm glad to see this trend, too.That's great news! Guess what?

According to one of the few Dem. journalists in these parts,
who writes for our local paper,

-Orange County, CA--

the infamous stronghold of Repubs and Neocons is going in that
direction!

http://tinyurl.com/5lx94b

The money is assuredly here, but offering it up in support of a Democrat in these parts has long been regarded as heresy. But not any more, says Melahat Rafiei, local director of party affairs, who adds: “If they still think this is the most Republican county in the country, they’re in trouble.”

Numbers would seem to bear her out, especially recruitment.

In the last 16 months, according to Rafiei, Democrats have registered 39,000 new party members in Orange County to 3,000 for the Republicans. Admittedly the Republicans were holding a considerable head start, but the trend is shifting.

Who'd a thunk it?
That made my week!

:) :thumbsup: :D

[Celeborn Skywalker]

5. Mainline congregations tend to vary idealogically.

I expect as the evangelicals and fundamentalists get crazier and more intolerant, that there will be even more of a liberal presence in the coming years.

Even conservative mainline congregations aren't that bad. The difference between a conservative mainline congregation and a conservative evangelical/fundamentalist congregation is that the mainline conservatives don't seem to be as batshit insane over biblical literacy and actually accept science and reason. They also aren't as pushy with their faith.