What is the role of religion in the results of this US election?

[Aldebaran]

@Elenia28

That’s the thing. I get one of three attitudes from every Christian I’ve ever met.

Well, I can’t say this from “every” Christian I ever met and not only because that would include my mother and her relatives. But I do have some very similar as you describe.

Now back to topic and in general to all whoi posted:

How do you see this in the future. Shall the next election be even more dictated by and focussed on the Christian religion or do you think you have ways and tools to counter its influence on the political scene?

Salaam. A

[furt]

@Elenia28

I get one of three attitudes from every Christian I’ve ever met.

By definition, if you met a Christian who didn’t talk about it, you wouldn’t know. I suggest you likely have.

[BlueGarden]

@Monocracy

Actually, conservatives are also taking credit for it. I’m listening to Laura Ingraham, a well-known Bush cheerleader, and she is attributting her entire 3 hour radio show to how “values” won the election for Bush. There is some truth to it, but it is not absolute, not everyone who voted for Bush is xtian, vut a solid block of xtians voted for Bush with the idea of imposing their values on the nation.

Tell me, because i don’t know much about your philosophy, as a Satanist, do you wish to impose your values onto others, or should everyone be free to follow their own morals?

No I would never want to impose my values onto others and it is one of the beliefs of Satanism that everybody is free to make their own decisions. Except we do live in a society and as such we have to agree on a certain number of ‘rules’. Like murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, molesting children is wrong, etc. Most, but not all, Satanists follow LeVays 11 Satanic Rules of Earth, which covers all that pretty well. There are also the 9 Satanic Statements and the 9 Satanic Sins, not that the Satanic concept of sin is anything like the Christian concept of sin.
Most of us are very low key in our lives, nobody who ever saw me on the street would ever know I was a Satanist. Others are more open about it.
Trying to define a Satanist is hard though, as one person said ‘it’s like nailing jello to the wall’. Satanism is about the individual, if we were all alike we wouldn’t be Satanists anymore.
What would surprise most people though (I think) that at least among the Satanists I know, none smoke, very few drink, even fewer use drugs and most don’t eat meat. Not that there are any rules that say we can’t, just that there is no good reason why we should. Well, except for eating meat. Some of us do that because it tastes good.
Satanism is a life affirming belief, we believe life should be enjoyed and lived to the fullest, that you should never stop learning and improving yourself, and you should not be living your life in fear of some vengeful god sending you to hell. We are also well aware that freedom comes with responsibility, so if you overindulge and get hurt you have no one to blame but yourself. No ‘the devil made me do it’ and no begging god for forgiveness.
Of course not all Satanists are going to agree on all of this, but I think most would.
There are basically part 4 different types of Satanist. Levayan, Theistic, the Yezidis and what Diane Vera calls the ‘Black Circle Boys’. Levayans are usually atheists or agnostic, you can search Church or Satan. Theistics worship Satan in one form or another (Temple of Set, Church of Lucifer,Diane Veraml, etc). Some worship him as an actual entity, others worship what he represents. The Yedizis are a Kurdish sect. The ‘Black Circle Boys’ are teenagers who are rebeling against their (usually) Christian background. They usually grow out of it. I include the psycho and sociopaths that do crazy stuff in the name of Satan in with that group.
And FWIW most Satanists I know voted for Kerry.

[Suse]

I’m just asking because I honestly don’t know the answer: Isn’t this country, as a practical matter, a theocracy now? Are there national-level politicians who don’t feel it necessary to make a public statement or display of their religion, whatever it may be?

I’m not talking about county commissioner, here. It’s just that I can’t remember a competitive senatorial or Presidential candidate who hasn’t made a big deal out of it. (BTW, my memories of elections go back as far as Ford/Carter, if that helps.)
Can a candidate who doesn’t discuss faith or values or religion get elected?

[doreen]

@Elenia28

That’s the thing. I get one of three attitudes from every Christian I’ve ever met.

Smug friendliness. Oh, they’re nice, and they never talk about my religion in a bad way, but they know *they’re * going to heaven, and *I’m * not. There’s no doubt in their minds.

Genuine bafflement. What, there are people who really don’t worship Christ? Do they know they’re wrong?

Downright hate and disgust. We all know these people, do I need to talk about them?

I want all my political leaders to stop mentioning religion now and forever more. This is not a Christian country anymore, there are too many other people here and we’re people too. We’re not heathens or beneath importance. But I get the feeling this is how they feel about us.

Gotta ask, because it’s just one of those things that gets to me- what type of Christians is it that you get these attitudes from? I hear those attitudes too, but I’ve noticed that I get them from a specific type of Christian-generally those who identify themselves as Christian without being more specific, and who only include people who have very similar beliefs to theirs as Christians. I never hear these attitudes from people who identify themselves as Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, or any other specific denomination, and the people with the attitudes generally don’t consider Catholics to be Christians ( don’t know what they think about the other denominations)

[Eva_Luna]

@Mirasawa

It’s still a cultural value for a large number of Americans that homosexuality is immoral, like adultery is still considered immoral by a majority of people. They feel that the government putting a homosexual union on par with hetero marriage is like equating what swingers do with committed couples.

Fine, but personally I believe that although adultery is morally wrong, I don’t want legislation prohibiting it. People have to make their own moral decisions.

What’s next, Prohibition again? Some Christians believe that drinking is wrong, but the religion I was raised in (Judaism) requires alcohol for some religious rituals. With the creep of evangelical Christianity into public life, what assurances do we have that even beliefs and teachings which are relatively mainstream will continue to be protected?

[BrainGlutton]

Here’s some stats on the issue, from http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1664/:

Exit polls tell us that about a third of Bush supporters in Tuesday’s election said they backed the president because of “moral values.” In the 14 most competitive states—where almost three in 10 voters overall described themselves as born-again Christians, higher than the national total—moral values topped the list of the most important issues facing America. Nationwide, nearly a quarter of voters said faith guided them this election season.

<snip>

Not only did a record number of self-identified Christians cast ballots this year, Bush beat John Kerry in all religious categories except among Jews, three-quarters of whom supported the senator. Despite being the first Roman Catholic nominated for president since John Kennedy in 1960, Kerry lost soundly to Bush among white Catholics 56 percent to 43 percent. And though Bush hasn’t attended church in two years and Kerry routinely attends Mass, Bush received 40 percent of the vote from weekly churchgoers. Among white, religious conservatives that number jumped to 95 percent.

<snip>

Fearing they forever will be in the minority without a religious conversion, some Democrats now are calling for a reevaluation of their values to appeal to this bloc—given that the party’s image as godless, gay-loving and weak on defense is contrary to the country’s shift toward a more thorough faith-based society. As argued by Chris Duncan, chairman of the University of Dayton political science department: “On questions of moral values, the image is of Democrats being in part sort of hostile to some of the real concerns people have in terms of values. Whether right or wrong, these are big issues for a significant portion of the electorate, and the Democrats are really putting themselves in the position of being a minority party for a long time if they can’t reconcile themselves with some of these issues.”

But all this talk—and the Democrats’ seeming need for quadrennial bloodlettings no matter the outcome of elections—overlooks one important fact: The same exit polls that signal a national trend toward religious conservatism indicate a continuing progressive attitude toward social issues. Fifty-five percent, for instance, said abortion should be mostly or always legal, steady since 2000, and 61 percent said same-sex couples should have the right to marry or have civil unions. And when asked about the most important quality a presidential candidate could have, only 8 percent cited religious faith. Yes, Bush won the popular vote, but he did so in no greater numbers than those formerly disaffected evangelicals targeted for turnout by Republicans this year. In other words, Bush required these people to win precisely because his isn’t a consensus view.

[furt]

@Suse

I’m just asking because I honestly don’t know the answer: Isn’t this country, as a practical matter, a theocracy now?

No. Even assuming no politican can get elected without claiming any religious faith (Does Arnold Schwazenegger ring a bell?), that comes nowhere near theocracy.

@BrainGlutton

Here’s some stats on the issue,

Here are some more:

Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

It’s true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying “moral values.” But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn’t vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That’s hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

Evangelicals were a core bloc for Bush in 2004; just as they were in 2000, 1996, 1992, and on and on.

The only meaningful question is whether this was a new or *increased * voting bloc. It wasn’t.