I think there is a very soft line beween “non-Christian” and “Christian” in America. Many (if not most) Christian Americans don’t reguarly practice religion - and they may or may not bring it up when convenient.
I think that line has gotten a little sharper recently, though. In the Clinton admin, I would have said that it is pretty thin, but now that we have Bush and the various Christian elements he initializes, plus “rivals” in Muslims, some people are holding their bibles a little closer to their chests.
You stated that “fundamentalists and Evangelicals” were what tipped the balance. Theres a world of difference between “conservative Christians” and Evangelicals/fundamentalists. I wouldn’t doubt that “conservative Christians” made a big difference in the election, but that is such an amorphouse term as to be pretty meaningless. Most people in this country are Chrsitian, so what it really means, essentially, is that CONSERVATIVES are what tipped the balance.
If Evangelicals and fundamentalists aren’t conservative Christians, what are they? If you want to ignore the Evangelical, etc. part, fine, but the idea that the value wedge issues motivated these conservative Christians to vote in greater numbers than they did in the last election is, as far as I can tell, amply supported by the available evidence. Conservative Christians appear to have made up a large number of new voters in the key states. Their religious leaders (many of them self-identified Evangelicals) have gone on record as having researched the legality of encouraging their flock to vote according to values, and when satisfied by what they found, did just that. The demographic trends would seem to indicate this grass-roots campaign in religious communities worked as intended. These very pastors were regarded by Rove himself as essential to ensuring a Bush victory. What’s so implausible about what I’ve asserted? It seems some people want to suggest that because one exit poll was flawed, the entire notion that value-motivated Christians weren’t critical to Bush’s victory is now rubbish. I don’t think that’s a sound conclusion.
John, I agree that terminology can be a bit inexact, but there is a standard usage for “conservative Christian” to mean someone to whom doctrinal orthodoxy and conformity to a particular moral system are important issues, who regards him/herself as “true” Christian in a way that those whom they regard as “self-styled liberal Christians” are not. They generally incorporate those who describe themselves as “evangelicals” (in a mission/conversion sense rather than the meaning Lutherans give to the term) or “fundamentalists.”
Given that, I’d ask what definitions you are prepared to use to describe those who support, e.g., the SBC leadership’s agenda, “Focus on the Family,” the Family Values Lobby, Traditional Values Coalition, and related groups? I’m not averse to working with terms that seem to my cohorts in a discussion to more clearly reflect the realities of a situation – but I’m not prepared to buy into a generalized cavil as to a commonly used generalization that suggests no substitute and clearer demarcations.
Loopy: I’ll be back later to discuss this more, but in the meantime, read this article about the “moral values” poll. I was, btw, primarily concerned with your use of “Fundamentalists and Evangelics” the first post I replied to, so if you ignore that part, then there’s nothing left…
I guess I don’t know what to think about that. All the article does is refute the validity of that one exit poll, which we both, and my cite, agree was flawed. It goes on to describe what the entire electorate voted on, and makes no mention of the what I have understood to be the fact that, whatever the reason for voting, essentially the same people who voted for Bush in the last election did so this time around; and likewise for Kerry. So it appears that, without additional members of the electorate weighing in, Bush and Kerry would have been in another dead heat. Many more people turned out to vote than in the last election, both Democrat and Republican. The Republicans got more of those new voters. Who are these new voters? Given the demographics from the key states, it looks as if they’re conservative Christians. What was motivating them? They are saying themselves that it was “values”, like opposition to gay marriage. If theses folks really didn’t matter that much, not only am I mistaken, they are too. And if you’ll note from the first post where I made the assertion we’ve been debating, I never claimed I knew for 100% certain. I’m not sure that anyone does. But I don’t think my suspicions are so fallacious as you seem to suggest. They’re based on numbers and testimonials from the very regions that made the difference in the election. I am full agreement about the exit poll. It was a stinker, and essentially useless. I don’t doubt that more people voted over TWAT or the economy than over values. It’s just those folks, apparently, were in the bag from the beginning. And, quite possibly, they weren’t enough. Sure, it’s the whole haystack that crushed the camel, but aren’t we supposed to pay attention to that last straw?
[May I ask a stupid question? How many Americans, in percentage, are Christians? And how many atheïsts? - I’m asking because when same-sex marriages were allowed years ago here, the labor party [non Christian] was the biggest party. They were the ones that changed the law. To the full satisfaction of 95% of the Dutch. 85% of the Dutch see no problem in gay couples adopting children either.
Maybe it’s because there are more atheïsts around here and the Christians are very liberal? ]
One possible explanation – it’s worked for me for many years – is that the non-religious find many concerns of the religious to be boring and stupid. Explaining to the dullards that there is no Great Sky Fairy gets tired after awhile. I stay out of religious debates on the Dope for the most part because the fundamental assumptions their debates are based on are so obviously bullshit that it makes the whole debate absurd. It’s about on par with debates over in Cafe Society over whether the Enterprise could defeat a Super Star Destroyer from Star Wars, except that the folks in Cafe Society (for the most part) know they’re just goofing. But the folks in Great Debates think the shit they’re shooting is for real.
Thus it is with same sex marriage. So your ancient holy book says it’s bad. Boo-fucking-hoo, it’s an obvious collection of rants by guys who wouldn’t last a week on the Straight Dope.
After awhile, you want to think about interesting and productive things instead of helping out the laggards in the back of the class.
Well, I guess it comes down to the difference between “Evanvelicals and fundamentalsits”, per your original post, and “conservative Christians”. You still seem to be using these terms interchangeably. And yet your very own cite says that there is no evidence that Evangelical turnout this time was greater than last. So what is it? If those two terms are the same, then there is no evidence that the group, whatever term you use to define it, turned out in larger numbers. If the two groups are different, then what is the difference? Who, exactly, are we talking about.
IOW, what is the difference between a “conservative Christian” and an “evangelical/fundamentalis”? If you define your terms, we can probably resolve this.
Lets say it was 50.5M vs 62.0M, or a delta of 9.5M
That is, at least 9.5M more people* voted for Bush this time as compared to last time. You can slice and dice that 9.5M population six ways from Sunday, and claim that any subgroup was the “swing voters”.
If you want to focus on swing states, it would make more sense to look at NM and NH, since those states swtiched parties relative to 2000. Ohio went for Bush in both elections.
*for simplicity, lets ignore the voters who passed away since 2000 as well as those who turne 18 yrs old since then
Do you have the slightest bit of evidence that any religious person in the US looks on a non-religious marriage as abnormal? I got married in the Ethical Culture Society, with no mention of any deity, and in over 26 years I’ve never noticed an objection. Movies often have the hero and heroine being married by a justice of the peace. Your idea of the US is quite odd sometimes.
My father is not religious, although, technically speaking, he’s not quite American, either. He and my mother who more or less considers herself a lapsed Christian both oppose gay marriage and, to some extent, homosexuality in general. It’s not because of anything in the Bible; it’s simply because to them homosexuality is different. It wasn’t talked about in their generation and they don’t understand why we need to talk about it now. To them, it is about “flaunting their homosexuality”, even though I’ve pointed out that jayjay, for example, no more flaunts his homosexuality than I flaunt my heterosexuality when I talk about the wonderful man I’ve been seeing. I’d say they haven’t thought much about homosexuality and would prefer not to. I’ve no doubt that if one of my siblings or I had turned out to be gay, they would have readjusted their attitudes and welcomed their child’s spouse into their home, but it would be difficult. As it is, they are getting used to the idea. When they were growing up in England, they could tell themselves they didn’t know anyone who was homosexual or, if they did, no one talked about it; it simply was. Now they feel like they’re being forced to talk about something they’d just as soon not.
I don’t consider my parents bigots, and their attitudes are changing. They are, however, rather big on conformity, not making waves, and coming to terms with the status quo. Bringing home someone of the same sex and announcing one’s intention to marry that person does challenge the status quo, however wrong that status quo is. For what it’s worth, they despaired of me because I insisted on being different in other ways, even though I had no idea how to change it. It’s more evidence that things are not as they were and can’t go back to that way.
[hijack] Aldebaran, I just wanted to let you know that it’s tonight that I’ll be singing Handel’s Messiah. I’ll spare a thought for you while I do.
[/hijack]
This may indeed be a mistake. One forehead-smacker moment I’ve had reading and re-reading articles is my failure to remember the potential importance of Latino Catholics in FL, to give an example. By focusing rather narrowly on a subset of Protestants (as Evangelicals most commonly are), I’ve been essentially ignoring the importance of Catholic values-motivated voters in other areas, for instance. So while the prior statements about “conservative Christians”, and their importance as new voters (or even swing voters) may in fact be as valid as I think, being to fixated on the “Evangelicals” may not be all that sound an evaluation. Perhaps I have been sucked into the media oversimplification, as you have suggested, after all.
I think you’re misreading his question. It’s a good question he asks, which really has two parts. If the objection to SSM is religiously you (rhetorical, not personal you) don’t want your marriages corrupted, then why are you not bothered by non-religious, or even anti-religious, people being married in non-Christian ceremonies?
On the flip side, if you are non-religious or not Christian, why don’t you see the danger in Christians defining marriage? I think rjung, who answered the question rather than get all defensive, is right that it is more a matter of being drowned out and having insufficient numbers than being silent or uninterested in the issue.
Red herring or tu quoque? The question was about Christian objections to SSM in America. It matters not what any Muslim country does.
Some folks are just so pugnacious towards Aldebaran that it’s pathetic. He looks at the U.S. through a different lens then most of us. And that is good. It’s helpful to have an outsider’s questions and POV. He can sometimes see flaws that we’re inured to or don’t even see.
This wikipedia site is great for election results. Just change the date in the URL for whatever election you want. It has all the stats, and is where I got the Bush numbers.
which seems to address non-religious, straight, marriages.
Marriage is a social contract which predates Christianity by quite a bit. Christianity adopting marriage doesn’t bother me. I am bothered if the definition of marriage gets religiously, rather than socially, defined. If the anti-SSM crowd could demonstrate social ills from not allowing it, we’d have something to talk about - at least we could try to balance the good and the bad, and see where we come out. However they seem to only assert that there is some dreadful social cost, never demonstrate it. So the opposition seems to boil down to being Biblically based, which is not acceptable by itself, or in some cases driven by bigotry, also not acceptable. Any religious person opposing SSM because of what his or her god supposedly should be covered here, not just Christians. And atheist homophobes fall into the second category.
Neither. How about a direct response to this in the OP (my bolding):
Last I looked, Moslems were non-Christians.
It does when the OP claims that non-Christians are “largely silent” on the issue…
I’m not aware of any instances where that has been true yet, including this time. Not to say it might not happen sometime in the future. I’ll acknowledge it when it actually happens.
