Site Announcements

Moving!
Read more...

The Battle For Catholic Voters

A forum to disuss the candidates and issues of the upcoming 2008 Presidential election.

The Battle For Catholic Voters

Postby AlicornsPrayer on Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:52 am

There's a reason why so many of us today feel strongly about seperation of church and state.

The Battle for Catholic Voters
Wednesday, Jul. 02, 2008
The Battle for Catholic Voters
By Amy Sullivan

Douglas Kmiec is the kind of Catholic voter the G.O.P. usually doesn't have to think twice about. The Pepperdine law professor and former Reagan Justice Department lawyer (Samuel Alito was an office mate) attends Mass each morning. He has actively opposed abortion for most of his adult life, working with crisis pregnancy centers to persuade women not to undergo the procedure. He is a member of the conservative Federalist Society and occasionally sends a contribution to Focus on the Family.

He is also a vocal supporter of Barack Obama. Kmiec made waves in the Catholic world in late March when he endorsed the Democratic candidate. But Kmiec insists that while he still considers himself a Republican, his choice is clear this election year. "I have grave moral doubts about the war, serious doubts about the economic course Republicans have followed over the last seven years, and believe that immigration reforms won't come about by Republican hands," he says. "Senator McCain would not be the strongest advocate for the balance of things that I care about."

A new TIME poll of Catholic voters reveals that Kmiec is part of a broader pattern. Although Obama was thought to have a "Catholic problem" during the Democratic primaries, in which Hillary Clinton won a majority of Catholic votes, he has pulled even with John McCain among that constituency — Obama now polls 44% to his G.O.P. opponent's 45%.

There are 47 million Catholic voters, and while they are too numerous and varied to speak of as a monolithic Catholic bloc, they have long been a kind of holy grail for presidential candidates. The winner of eight out of the past nine elections has captured a majority of Catholic votes (they voted for Al Gore in 2000), and there are large Catholic concentrations in key states like Florida, Ohio and New Mexico.

The trick is figuring out what Catholics want. For decades, they were part of the New Deal coalition and were largely concerned with economics and foreign policy. More recently, Republicans have cut into that advantage by appealing to Catholics on social issues, a courtship that culminated in George W. Bush's victory in 2004. The TIME poll confirmed that a majority of Catholics (59%) can be broadly defined as pro-life (opposing abortion except to protect a woman's life or health or in cases of rape or incest). But these pro-life Catholics are actually split into two voting camps.

Many conservative Catholics consider abortion to be the determining factor in their electoral decisions, and as a result they almost always support Republican candidates. But for other Catholics, social issues can be trumped in times of economic and national insecurity. What's interesting about this year is that Catholics like Kmiec are moving from the first group of voters to the second.

Republicans entered this election season from a position of disadvantage with Catholics for the same reasons they face problems with the general electorate: the economy, high gas prices and the ongoing war in Iraq. But they've also failed to embrace the model of Catholic engagement that Bush spent six years putting into place. The Obama campaign is taking advantage of that opportunity. Just as Ronald Reagan brought large numbers of Catholic Democrats into the G.O.P. in the 1980s, Obama is hoping to woo them back and create a new Catholic category: Obama Republicans.

Tending the Flock
When Kmiec was growing up in Chicago in the 1950s and '60s, Catholics ran the city's Democratic political machine. The New Deal had cemented their loyalty to the party, but those ties began to fray in the late '60s and early '70s as many Catholics felt alienated by everything from the Roe v. Wade decision to urban busing initiatives. Kmiec was part of the wave of Reagan Democrats who were drawn to the Republican President's policies and vision.

The Republican Party worked to keep them in the fold. In the late 1990s, the Republican National Committee (RNC) created a Catholic Task Force, and by the end of the 2000 election cycle, the party had compiled a list of 3 million church-attending Catholics. The RNC spent $2.5 million contacting these targeted Catholics with direct mail and phone calls.

But that was just a dry run. Four years later, the RNC recruited some 50,000 Catholic team leaders to conduct parish-level outreach for Bush's reelection campaign; the volunteers were led on the ground by more than 75 field coordinators working for the party. Their efforts were supplemented by a group of outside organizations funded by leading conservative Catholics like Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino's Pizza. One of these groups, Priests for Life, spent $1 million on television and newspaper ads in the last month of the campaign.

The Catholic initiative was the most ambitious religious outreach effort ever undertaken by either party. And it paid off. Bush might have expected more competition for those votes from his Catholic opponent. But John Kerry found himself the target of stinging criticism from a few bishops who argued that he should be denied Communion because of his support for abortion rights. No one on the Kerry campaign was devoted to Catholic outreach, and Kerry chose not to respond to the attacks. Bush won the Catholic vote that year, 52% to 47%.

Faith of the Democrats
The G.O.P.'s success with Catholic voters in 2004 was an astounding victory born out of Bush's personal appeal to pro-life voters and six years of party organizing at the parish level. But it also sparked a backlash in many Catholic circles that is shaping the current election.

Alarmed that their fellow Catholics were being told that abortion and gay marriage were the only relevant Catholic issues, progressive Catholics have founded several organizations in the tradition of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who preached a "consistent ethic of life." One group, Catholics United, ran radio ads in the fall of 2007 targeting pro-life Republicans who voted against expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, arguing that such votes were not "pro-life."

The American bishops also made an effort to broaden their teaching. In the fall of 2007, they released Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility, an unusual document that counsels against divisive politics and reminds Catholics that "all life issues are connected." Such statements have cleared the way for Catholics like Kmiec to reevaluate what it means to cast a pro-life vote. "It's been 20-some years of trying to get the next vote on the court to overturn Roe," says Kmiec, "and I asked myself, What does that amount to?" He worries that by backing the G.O.P. strategy of holding out for a ban on abortion, pro-life voters have not focused on more pragmatic ways to reduce abortion rates.

In a climate in which Catholics aren't voting based on a rather narrow ideological agenda, the mechanics of how campaigns court them become more important. And it's on that level that perhaps the biggest changes from 2004 can be seen. McCain has a team of Catholic politicians, including Sam Brownback and Frank Keating, who serve as his surrogates, but has few aides within the campaign to coordinate outreach. The lack of high-level religious advisers became obvious earlier this year when McCain accepted the endorsement of Evangelical pastor John Hagee, who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore of Babylon," a phrase unlikely to warm the hearts of McCain's Catholic supporters.

Obama's campaign more closely resembles the 2004 Bush outreach effort. An extensive religious outreach team has focused the bulk of its work on training ordinary Catholics to reach out to friends and neighbors by holding "values" house parties and explaining their support for Obama. The Democrat also has a roster of high-powered Catholic surrogates who have fanned out across swing states — including Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr., whose father, the pro-life former governor, was widely viewed by Catholics as a victim of Democratic intolerance after he was not allowed to speak at the party's 1992 convention.

Obama, whose work as a community organizer was partly funded by a Catholic social-justice group, recently laid out his plan for a new and improved faith-based initiative. It is a policy extension of the phrase he often uses — "I am my brother's keeper" — to express his belief that members of a society are responsible for one another. And it is an idea rooted in the Catholic concept of the common good.

This "bottom-up, personal responsibility" message, as he describes it, appeals to Kmiec, allowing him to be not just a McCain skeptic but also an Obama supporter. That decision has not come without a cost — this spring Kmiec was denied Communion by a priest who denounced his endorsement of Obama. But with Catholics almost twice as likely to name the economy, Iraq and terrorism as their top concerns over abortion and gay marriage, Kmiec has plenty of company. Come November, that priest may be holding on to a very full bowl of wafers.
Image
User avatar
AlicornsPrayer
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 334
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:14 pm
Location: Illinois

Postby Rupchuk on Sun Jul 06, 2008 5:29 pm

I like the separation of church and state but I don't like the complete segregation of the two. I agree that the state should not endorse a religion but it shouldn't completely ban it from the premises of the capital building or school. If the principal wants to designate a 5 minute moment of prayer/silence then why can't he? As long as he isn't saying you have to pray to my god or this or that, what's the problem? The idea of the separation wasn't to keep spirituality out of the government buildings, it was to keep the government out of the church house. As long as the government isn't endorsing one religion over another then to me it is ok.

Anyways. Why does this guy say he is catholic if he isn't voting based on moral/religious issues? That'd be like me saying I'm pro-guns and I'm voting for Obama. If it is so important to make that the one phrase to describe you then why are you not voting based on the belief behind that word?
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." -Declaration of Independence

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater." - Peter Venetoklis
User avatar
Rupchuk
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Behind the mask

Postby Coyote on Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:12 am

Rupchuk wrote:I like the separation of church and state but I don't like the complete segregation of the two. I agree that the state should not endorse a religion but it shouldn't completely ban it from the premises of the capital building or school. If the principal wants to designate a 5 minute moment of prayer/silence then why can't he? As long as he isn't saying you have to pray to my god or this or that, what's the problem? The idea of the separation wasn't to keep spirituality out of the government buildings, it was to keep the government out of the church house. As long as the government isn't endorsing one religion over another then to me it is ok.


I'm with you, Rup. I have no problem with a 5 minute moment of respectful quiet. Heck, in a strictly practical sense, it's a great way to transition from the environment with their friends before school to a classroom learning environment. I'm not real keen on displays of the ten commandments on official public buildings, and such. It's not that they aren't good commandments to follow, it's just that a few of them (adultery comes to mind) that seem open to interpretation, IMO. And I'm not comfortable with specifically referencing Bible verses in public courthouses and places like that. That's just too overt.

Rupchuk wrote:Anyways. Why does this guy say he is catholic if he isn't voting based on moral/religious issues? That'd be like me saying I'm pro-guns and I'm voting for Obama. If it is so important to make that the one phrase to describe you then why are you not voting based on the belief behind that word?


He didn't say he wasn't voting on moral/religious issues. The opposite, in fact. He said he wasn't toeing the official "party line" with regards to certain issues, like Pro-Life. He said that there may be more effective ways to address abortion than making it illegal, which would better suit his religious and moral leanings in the long run if the net effect were fewer abortions.
User avatar
Coyote
Webmaster
Webmaster
 
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:01 pm

Postby OneOfDem on Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:35 pm

Rupchuk wrote:If the principal wants to designate a 5 minute moment of prayer/silence then why can't he?


So, do we know how many schools actually prohibit a 5 minute moment of silence? (prayer IS different from silence because promoting prayer promotes the idea that there is someone to pray TO .. which is, in effect, promoting religion.)
OneOfDem
Civilian
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:14 pm

Postby Rupchuk on Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:43 pm

Oh let's not say prayer, that promotes religion, which one exactly? The buddhists pray, so do the muslims, jews, christians, hindus, satanists, hell even some atheists pray. What if it was called moment of silence but the principal said, "During this moment you can reflect, pray, or think."

What I see is a promotion of no religion in any government facility which is completely beyond the meaning of the separation of church and state.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." -Declaration of Independence

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater." - Peter Venetoklis
User avatar
Rupchuk
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Behind the mask

Postby Coyote on Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:59 am

I bet most schools don't prohibit it, but neither to most schools participate. I would imagine most teachers and administrators prefer not to go there.
User avatar
Coyote
Webmaster
Webmaster
 
Posts: 1032
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:01 pm

Postby Rupchuk on Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:00 am

I'm sure. I don't even think the moment of silence thing has gone to court but the administrators are probably so afraid of a lawsuit that they don't get anywhere near it. I'm guessing that's where a lot of the zero tolerance policies come from too. They're so PC they can't even pee anymore, only tinkle.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." -Declaration of Independence

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater." - Peter Venetoklis
User avatar
Rupchuk
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Behind the mask

Postby OneOfDem on Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:00 pm

Rupchuk wrote:Oh let's not say prayer, that promotes religion, which one exactly? The buddhists pray, so do the muslims, jews, christians, hindus, satanists, hell even some atheists pray. What if it was called moment of silence but the principal said, "During this moment you can reflect, pray, or think."

What I see is a promotion of no religion in any government facility which is completely beyond the meaning of the separation of church and state.


So you think most Christians would have no problem with the term "mantra" as opposed to "prayer"?

Yeah, right, I don't think so.

I highly doubt, that if, Principal used of the word "mantra" or "meditation" or phrase "Internal chant" (Buddist, Hinduism) or "incantation" (Wiccan) as opposed to "prayer", Christians wouldn't have a conniption fit.... because they would feel that "meditation" would indicate a leaning towards a particular type of religion over theirs and would feel that the school was promoting/supporting another religion over theirs. Talk about "PC"!

So, let's not pretend this is about keeping religion out of the schools and that "prayer" is a neutral phrase. Because many Christians would NEVER allow a principle to call the moment of silence, "Internal Mantra", or some variation thereof.

Why not just make it "neutral" in away that allows all faiths or non faiths to choose their method of silence/prayer/meditation/incantations/chant?

I will just end this with this true story:

My school used the term "prayer" when I was a kid. My father died when I was young. I was struggling with how I felt about God and heaven. God killed my daddy. I was disappointed in God, and quite frankly, didn't want to "speak" to him, IF he existed.

Everytime the Principal used the term prayer over the loud speaker, my stomach tightened up and I felt awful. It made me feel like EVERYONE else was praying to God, and I was the sinful rotten human being because I was questioning things, because I was mad at God. It made me feel guilty and feel badly about myself. It made me feel pressured to "forgive" God. It made me feel pressured to BELIEVE in God. Because someone in authority was indicating I should pray. I would look around the room with one eye open, and see all the other kids praying... and here I was, "the bad kid" who didn't WANT to pray.

My mother told me that Daddy was watching over me from Heaven. But I knew better, because I was having a recurring nightmare, that because I didn't pray the way the principal told me to, that God wouldn't let my Daddy watch over me from heaven, and maybe even wouldn't let him into heaven because of it.

If they had just used "moment of silence", I wouldn't have been made to feel so shitty about myself.

Prayer is NOT a neutral word.

Why does it have to be labeled "prayer"? Or why do you pretend that "prayer" is a neutral word, when it is NOT.

What if it was called moment of silence but the principal said, "During this moment you can reflect, pray, or think."


I wouldn't take issue with that because it acknowledges that whatever the child decides to do with that time is valid. I don't object to the word prayer being used in and of itself, I simply object to using it as if it's a neutral word and to the exclusion of recognizing the possibility of other's beliefs, or lack thereof.

But that might depend on the context. If the principal says that, then he/she and/or the teacher proceeds to pull a bible/koran out of their desk or put down their prayer mat and face Mecca, or tell the kids to repeat "aum"... then I would say they would be saying one thing and doing another.
Last edited by OneOfDem on Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
OneOfDem
Civilian
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:14 pm

Postby Rupchuk on Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:30 pm

Prayer has a certain lean, simply because you have to pray to something. I don't see it as a grossly unbiased word. I don't have a problem using the term mantra or incantation. So long as it is explained as to what it means. Prayer has a slightly different meaning from incantation and mantra I'm sure, so long as it is explained to me I have no problem. I'm not going to think, "Oh he said it's the moment of mantra I can't pray to Jesus now."

I would have no problem if the moment of silence was a quiet time for the students and faculty to pray or chant or sit twiddling their thumbs or whatever. My question now is how are the teachers supposed to pray? Just because they work for the state doesn't mean they shouldn't pray does it? I mean you wouldn't think bad of a congressman who prayed before a vote would you? I understand that children are impressionable but teachers aren't robots.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." -Declaration of Independence

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater." - Peter Venetoklis
User avatar
Rupchuk
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Behind the mask

Postby OneOfDem on Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:40 pm

Rupchuk wrote:Prayer has a certain lean, simply because you have to pray to something. I don't see it as a grossly unbiased word. I don't have a problem using the term mantra or incantation. So long as it is explained as to what it means.


So, should the Principal take 10 minutes each morning to explain the meaning of prayer too? Get into all the semantics? Or would it just be more logical and respectful to use a more neutral term or all encompassing terms?

Rupchuk wrote:My question now is how are the teachers supposed to pray? Just because they work for the state doesn't mean they shouldn't pray does it?


A teacher can pray. Just as the kids can pray during a moment of silence. Nothing is preventing anyone from praying.
OneOfDem
Civilian
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:14 pm

Postby Rupchuk on Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:46 pm

Well you brought up the idea that if the teacher had a bible or koran or other spiritual text on their desk it would influence the children. I'm just expanding on that. If the teacher wore a kippah would that be a problem?

A more neutral term would be appropriate. Although it would be nice if the audience (the children and other faculty) understood that a moment of prayer, moment of mantra, moment of chant, moment of silence, etc. was just a moment of spiritual exercise. That it does not mean you must pray or chant or bow your head, it means that you can (you don't have to) contact your spiritually higher power(s).

I'm not sure how other people react to this sort of thing so I'll ask you guys. I'm sure some of you watch or have at least seen NASCAR. Before the race they have an invocation in which a pastor or minister makes a group prayer. They ask the people to bow their heads and pray. When you guys hear that do you think, "I have to pray to Jesus." Or do you just pray (or not pray) how you feel like regardless of what the pastor's prayer is?
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." -Declaration of Independence

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater." - Peter Venetoklis
User avatar
Rupchuk
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Behind the mask

Postby killerbee on Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:56 pm

Why is prayer so important in learning?

A kid goes to school to learn how to make a living and the social skills to co-exist in the community.

If you want your kid to have a religious education then send them to a religious school. Prayer has no place in education. School is about teaching logical solutions NOT teaching ancient supersticious nonsense
User avatar
killerbee
Capo
Capo
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:56 am
Location: Victoria Australia

Postby Rupchuk on Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:29 am

They give kids a lunch break so they can eat, right? What's wrong with a break to allow for them to feed their spirit? They aren't teaching the children religion, it's simply a moment to reflect, it's usually at the beginning of the day.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." -Declaration of Independence

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater." - Peter Venetoklis
User avatar
Rupchuk
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Behind the mask

Postby OneOfDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:31 am

Rupchuk wrote:Prayer has a certain lean, simply because you have to pray to something. I don't see it as a grossly unbiased word. I don't have a problem using the term mantra or incantation. So long as it is explained as to what it means. Prayer has a slightly different meaning from incantation and mantra I'm sure, so long as it is explained to me I have no problem. I'm not going to think, "Oh he said it's the moment of mantra I can't pray to Jesus now."


That's not the point. That's YOU. However, many Christian parents may have a problem with it. So let's not pretend that "prayer" is a neutral term, let's not pretend Mantra is a neutral term ... is all I'm saying.

I will say again. Why not do the LOGICAL thing, and use a phrase that is friendly and accepting to as many people as possible? Why INSIST that "prayer" be utilized?

I'm sure some of you watch or have at least seen NASCAR.... Before the race they have an invocation in which a pastor or minister makes a group prayer...


Are you really telling us that you don't know the difference between NASCAR and a state/governmental institution? AKA separation between church and state. I'm not sure what the purpose of this conversation is if something as basic and remedial as that is not understood.
OneOfDem
Civilian
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:14 pm

Postby OneOfDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:39 am

Rupchuk wrote:They give kids a lunch break so they can eat, right? What's wrong with a break to allow for them to feed their spirit?


So what are the kids that don't necessarily believe in "spirit" supposed to do?

Give 'em a break to have a moment of silence, or "feed their spirit" or pick their nose or whatever... But don't create an atmosphere where people who don't believe in Spirit, or are struggling with their beliefs, feel obligated to participate in "spirit feeding".

Please, tell me you DO know the difference between the NON-choice feeding one's body and the CHOICE to "feed one's spirit"? I mean, to make that comparison is quite inappropriate and rather ridiculous.

They aren't teaching the children religion, it's simply a moment to reflect


If it's simply a moment to reflect then call it a "moment to reflect". Reflection is not synonymous with prayer. "Prayer" implies religious belief. Prayer is a religious practice. Prayer is a religious ritual.

Public schools should not be in the business of promoting religious rituals.
Last edited by OneOfDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
OneOfDem
Civilian
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:14 pm

Next

Return to 2008 Election News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest