I have to disagree. The October Surprise turned out to be religion. People voted for Bush because he wore God on his sleeve and was perceived to be a person of faith. He turned to various churches and religious groups for support, and got it. He also gave a nod to the things these groups wanted - things based on their own religious shopping list.
No. Something like 20% of voters chose Bush because of “values.” Not a majority of voters. Not even a majority of Christian voters cited that as their main issue.
Interestingly enough, the whole “values” thing might be overstated. Seems it depends on how the poll questions are worded:
So when can I expect your condemnation of Kerry for campaigning in churches himself?
Sauce for the gander and all that.
It’s very likely I’ve missed something in all the discussion of “moral values” in the exit poll results, so please be kind if that’s the case.
Why the assumption that considering “moral values” a top priority means a voter cast his or her ballot for Bush? I was a staunch Kerry supporter who, if asked those questions, would have listed moral values near the top of my list. I consider mutual respect for people who are different, tolerance, and honesty to be very important values, and they’re among the most important reasons I didn’t vote for Bush. Just pointing out that “moral values” doesn’t necessarily mean “conservative Christian” values. I’d be very interested in hearing what percentage of Kerry voters listed morality at or near the top of their priorities.
And for the record: I’m a far left liberal who often often disagrees with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others who, despite being Democrats, are often intolerant and racially divisive.
Living in MA, I’m pretty insulated from the Christian Right but my one encounter with a Born Again was deeply disturbing and has had lifelong repercussions. Is there a program where we can “Adopt-a Christian-Right”? Or organize a pen pal program between red states and blue states to help foster communication and understanding between the most insulated?
I will happily do so. I found Kerry’s pandery and evocation of his own religious convictions as a justification for the position that gays are not entitled to equal protection under the law to be deplorable. Really, it was one of the things I found so thoroughly disheartening about this year’s election, and I could view my options on the ballot as nothing less than a lamentable choice between bad and much worse. This is the sorry state that American politics has come to: After more than two centuries of being ostensibly a nation rules by a secular government, the party which was the erstwhile proponent of the need for areligiosity in matters of national policy has been reduced to half-hearted mimickry of the party most comitted to destroying the separation of Church and State. It’s disgusting, and I deplore it. I cannot ephasize my feelings of distaste enough. For this, and a few other reasons, I’m less-than-crushed that Kerry, the individual, lost. I would have rather seen him win, given the alternative, but it would have been a hollow victory for me in terms of principles.
Can we please stop derisive references to “red states?” That will serve no purpose but to harden the lines (which would be electoral suicide for Democrats). The whole “red state/blue state” meme plays right into Republican hands.
We are all purple states when you get right down to it. In the reddest of red states, Kerry got a significant percentage of votes, and in the bluest of blue states Bush got a significant percentage of votes.
(So thanks for your offer, AmericanMade, but there are plenty of us “blue” people fighting the good fight here behind “enemy lines.”)
Right here. Kerry did plenty of it too. However, he did not seem to go quite as far (my own perception only) and he did not quite succeed.
I don’t think I’m backpedalling. People who know that facts can still be religious. For instance, a Christian Doper here can know full well that there is no evidence for a soul, and in fact much evidence against it, but choose to believe it anyway. I personally think that is a foolish way to act, but the fact of the matter is that there is no ignorance here to dispel. Compare that to someone who thinks there is a soul, and there is actual evidence that it exists. Here, the person actually believes in facts that are not true. Therefore, we can and should fight that ignorance.
Good question. I think you are confused because I’m not talking about good and evil people, just about correct and incorrect beliefs. Mr. Moto seems confused about this as well. If a person is not hurting anyone else, and is a great person, then great! As I said above, is the person ignorant of the facts, or not? If they are ignorant of the fact, then we can cure them of this ignorance. If not, then I think there is no problem. “Everone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts”, as the Senator Moynihan said (notably quoted by factcheck.org).
I don’t think the matter of “respect” is one of “respect their beliefs,” but instead an admonition to “respect the political power that people with this basic set of beliefs has.”
You don’t have to agree with Creationists or anti-abortionists. But you had better recognize and plan for the fact that they turn out in droves on voting day, and they vote strictly according to their rigid and sharply-defined standards.
On the other side, we in “Big Labor” get criticized for being a “special interest” group in the same way that fundamentalist Christians do. We’re stereotyped as lazy illiterates who want a handout, even if it means bankrupting our employers. Yet everyone courts our vote- they RESPECT our power. And why are we “respected?” Because we make up only 11% of the population but 25% of the people who actually vote, so our voice counts, regardless of how stupid you may think us.
I imagine that Christians are the same way. If you’re a “good upstanding Christian follower,” they you’ll probably get more votes in certain areas than if you’re infinitely more qualified but happen to be gay or pro-choice. Rail about it all you want, but that’s politics for you.
Mobilize your own base instead of insulting your opponent’s and you’re much more likely to get the results you want.
Sigh… I guess some people need to be offended. I wasn’t being derisive. That is your connotation. I used “red states” as a short-hand for the people who voted for Bush.
I completely agree that the country in actuality is purple and the media is making tooo much fuss about the red/blue divide. Hell, my extended family is purple! Keep fighting the good fight behind the lines.
BTW my name is AmericanMaid and being knee-jerk defensive ain’t helping the cause either!
I wasn’t offended. Just raising my concerns about reinforcing the (illusory) red state/blue state divide.
And my last, parenthetical sentence was meant to be light-hearted, not a jab at you. Should have put a smiley there, I suppose.
Sorry about the typo on your name.
I understand. Just one concern still remains. That is how can I be respectful if every criticism of their beliefs are seen as disrespectful. I do not know how many fundamentalist you’ve argued with, but it is kind of hard to convince them not to care about homosexuals getting married. In my experience intelligence does not work with someone who does not believe in facts or science.
Demonizing would actually work if we had the majority on our side. It works for them.
For me, as far as convincing Christian-righters goes, I am out of options. I know there was a time where I tried an intelligent argument, but now I’m so upset that I resorted to just making fun of them. It takes the frustration away. I’ll keep trying of course, but it will still be seen as disrespectful and I could hardly care at this point.
You know, there’s a difference between convincing people that gays should get married and convincing them to vote Democratic, and just because somebody is, say, pro-life or anti-gay rights doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for the Republican party. Catholics tend to be pro-life and anti-gay rights, but in 1996, 48% voted for Clinton. Evangelical Christians tend to be pro-life and anti-gay rights, but in '96, 35% voted for Clinton.
Let’s look for a second at a few “red state” numbers. In Oklahoma, Kerry got 34% of the vote. But Brad Carson, the Democratic Senate candidate, got 41% of the vote. In South Carolina, Kerry got 41% of the vote, but Inez Tannenbaum, Democratic Senate candidate, got 44%. In Arkansas, Kerry got 45% of the vote, but Blanche Lincoln, the Democratic Senate candidate, won with 56% of the vote. All of these are states that went for Bush, and all of them are states where the “religious right” is a substantial force. And they’re all states where a significant percentage of the voters were willing to vote for Democrats and not Kerry.
So what’s my point? It’s that the “religious right” isn’t some mindless army of robots who walk in lockstep and say, “Ugh. Republican good, Democrat bad!” They’re not single issue voters, and they can be persuaded to vote for the Democrats too, but doing that means taking them seriously, not thinking they’re evil or stupid, and not assuming you’ve lost them from the start.
Oh, please. This has got to be the biggest backpedal of all.
So you’re seriously saying that you thought that a great deal of Dopers (or people in general) were going to fight the concept that there is no evidence of souls? I think that a vast majority all know that quite well. They know that they can’t prove it, but they believe it anyway. I’d daresay that many religious folk know that their faith cannot be proven. That is, as is constantly said, why it is called “faith.” Why, the whole point to some religious faith is the “faith” part. Faith, not facts. Faith, not proof.
So for you to now say, "Well, if they know that they can’t prove it . . . " is so much nonsense. Most of them knew it all along. They still most earnestly believe. But you wanted to “fight their ignorance” several posts ago . . .
Oh please.
:rolleyes:
How many people here think that they can prove it? Or anything else about religion, like the virgin birth? How many have seriously made that claim—that it can be proven? Precious, precious few. I do not believe for a second that you thinking before, “Only if they think they can prove it.” No, you were thinking, “If they seriously believe it.” I doubt you will admit it now, but there is no way that I won’t believe that it is exactly what you meant before.
The person (many religious persons) believes in things that they cannot prove, and they know they cannot prove, but they believe in their heart that they are true.
You still want to fight that ignorance? Yes or no? They believe it is true, but they just can’t prove it.
No, you are mistaken. I wasn’t talking about good or evil people, I was talking about people believing things (that could not be proven) that had no impact on anyone else. I wanted to understand why there was a need to talk someone out of believing something that wasn’t anyone else’s business and wasn’t hurting anyone else.
But if they still have “ignorant” beliefs, or they believe that something is true when (as far as your are concerned) it’s not true, do you want to “dispel their ignorance” or not?
And if they believe in something that is not true, it’s your job to dispel their ignorance, right?
So you’re saying that we need to bug someone who is minding their own business, not hurting anyone, believing in something that makes them happy? Yes or no?
The argument cuts both ways. One wants to eradicate the “false beliefs” of religion. Another wants to eradicate the “false belief” of the “wrong religion” or the “not religious”. Each side wants(?) to cram their own world view down someone else’s throat.
I think mobilizing one’s own “base” is a good idea.
As for insults, I don’t get upset when somebody says I’m going to burn in Hell. I can’t see why they would get upset when I tell that that’s a dumb thing to say.
Don’t worry, it’s just that darned double standard again.
Right, as some folks said in 2000.
I mean, in 2002.