Seismic Shift in Catholic Vote

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Seismic Shift in Catholic Vote
9
Wed, 09-29-2004 - 1:51pm
"Seismic" Catholic Shift to Bush
Posted September 28, 2004
By Uwe Siemon-Netto


President George W. Bush has suddenly acquired a commanding lead among Catholic voters over his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry, according to the latest survey of the California-based Barna Research Group.

Barna called this finding a "seismic shift." In May, Kerry led Bush 48-to-43 percent among Catholics. Today, the ratio has changed to 53-to-36 percent in Bush's favor, reports Barna, an organization researching opinions and behaviors of the religious communities in the United States.

"That swing is attributable to an encompassing assessment by many Catholics of the leadership abilities, character, and policy stands of both candidates," pollster George Barna said.

Sen. Kerry is a Roman Catholic, President Bush belongs to the evangelical wing of the United Methodist Church, a mainline Protestant denomination.

"Many of the Catholics now behind Mr. Bush have traditionally voted Democratic but have chosen a different course this time around," Barna said.

Catholics make up almost one-quarter - 23 percent - of U.S. voters.

On the flip side, "notional Christians" - those who have not made a personal commitment to Christ - are more likely to support Kerry. Of this group, consisting chiefly of mainline Protestants, 49 percent told Barna's researchers they would choose Kerry, while 37 percent preferred Bush.

Atheists and agnostics side with the Massachusetts senator at a 2-to-1 ratio. Notional Christians make up 38 percent of the American electorate, atheists and agnostics 5 percent.

Thus, "The Christian vote is crucial for Bush," Barna announced. His survey appears to signal a renewal of the decade-old alliance between conservative Christians, called "Evangelicals and Catholics Together." This alliance lined up against the intrusion of the postmodern Zeitgeist by opposing, for example, abortions.

Not surprisingly, evangelical Christians - approximately 10 percent of the electorate - are Bush's strongest supporters. Ninety percent in this category favor the president, while only 2 percent plan to vote for Kerry.

What is remarkable, however, is the overwhelming support (54-to-36) Bush enjoys among non-evangelical born-again Christians. That group constitutes about two-fifths of the electorate.

Barna uses the generally accepted definition of born-again Christians as those who say their personal commitment to Christ is still important in their lives today. They believe they will go to heaven because they had confessed their sins and accepted Christ as their savior.

These criteria apply to large numbers of Christians across denomination lines.

Barna describes evangelicals as a subgroup of born-again Christians. In addition to their criteria, this group affirms seven tenets: the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; faith is very important in their lives; they accept a personal responsibility for sharing their Christian beliefs with non-Christians; they believe that Satan exists; they believe salvation is only possible through grace, not works; they are convinced that Christ led a sinless life; God is to evangelicals the all-knowing, all-powerful and perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it.

According to Barna, non-evangelical Christians do not agree on all these points.

"The faith factor looms large," Barna reports. Some examples: Bush enjoys greater support than Kerry among regular Bible readers (42-to-31 percent), weekly worshipers 47-to-26 percent), those who discussed a moral issue with someone during the last seven days (41-34 percent), and those who turned off a television program for ethical reasons during that period (49-to-29 percent).

The latest Barna survey has other intriguing aspects as well. It shows, for example, that the larger a congregation, the more likely it is that its members will go to the polls. This suggests that mega-churches favored primarily, though not exclusively, by younger Americans have become a massive political factor.

The difference is stunning: If a church has fewer than 200 members, only 41 percent are likely to vote. The proportion rises to 53 percent in congregations numbering 200 to 499 adults, and to 61 percent in churches with 500 to 999 members. Once a congregation has passed the 1,000-member mark, 63 percent will participate in elections.

Since the trend in the United States goes in the direction of larger congregations, this is good news for George W. Bush. For it is from the faithful of those giant churches that he can expect the greatest support (65 percent), not from small-church worshipers, of whom only 47 percent favor him.

In presenting his latest findings, Barna cautioned observers to take nothing for granted, for even the faithful can turn out to be politically fickle. Nobody expected the "huge" transitions over the last two months, he said. By the same token, some voters might again switch allegiance as a result of campaign spending, debates "and the continuing saga of forged documents."

UWE SIEMON-NETTO is religious affairs editor for UPI, a sister news agency of Insight.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 10:30am
I havent heard this, but I did hear discussions on the news last night about how the swing states that have amendments before their voters banning same sex marriage may end up swinging towards Bush, as it appears that it is going to pass in every state it is proposed except for Oregon, which is too close to call at the moment.

Who knows...

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 1:53pm
Interesting.. but as a catholic myself, I fail to understand all the big deal made about same sex marriages. I separate my religious beliefs from my political beliefs. I don't believe I can impose my religious beliefs on others, and hence I could care less if men want to marry men and women want to marry women. The same way that I don't care if some people cheat on their spouses, which is also against my religious beliefs. But I choose not to live that way myself. But that's different than imposing it on others.

Why do people get so worked up about that issue? How does it affect those other than homosexuals? I don't get it. Is it about making 'marriage' less than what it is now? If that's so, then why not worry about all the people getting married on a fling in las Vegas and getting divorced willy-nilly. They make a bigger mockery of marriage than gays who really do want to be married. Is it about money? Maybe this is going to cost business and the government in terms of benefit coverage and reduced taxes as married people? But then isn't that going to be offset by gays now getting spousal support and hence less dependent on the state when marriages end? My understanding was that overall, marriage has a positive financial impact on our society.

Maybe someone could enlighten me about what all the fuss is about...

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-12-2001
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 1:59pm
"Is it about making 'marriage' less than what it is now? If that's so, then why not worry about all the people getting married on a fling in las Vegas and getting divorced willy-nilly. They make a bigger mockery of marriage than gays who really do want to be married."

A lot of conservatives are concerned about those things as well, which is why we're seeing growing movements toward doing away with no-fault divorce, covenant marriages, financial incentives for undergoing premarital counseling, etc.

Bev

girl in chair
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 2:07pm
I personally don't get it either. I seperate my beliefs from my political views. There's only one being who can judge others and that's why I seperate them. I'd rather be fair to everybody then pressure my beliefs down someone else's throat. XOXO.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 2:53pm
If that is how you feel, you are not a learned catholic, as homosexuality is a mortal sin according to the Roman Catholic Church and the Bible.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 4:10pm
???? I was born and raised catholic. Very catholic I might add. My dad actually started out doing his studies to become a priest, and then changed his mind. My step-mom was nurse/nun for many years before marrying my dad.

What does mortal sin have to do with it? There are other mortal sins that are not illegal. Last time I checked not honoring one's father and mother was not illegal, nor is committing adultery, nor is using contraceptives (also a mortal sin, believe it or not!)

Besides, three things are necessary for a sin to be mortal:

1. Serious matter (things listed in this examination);

2. Knowledge or firm belief that the act is seriously wrong prior to committing the act;

3. Full consent of the will.

All three of these conditions must be present simultaneously for a sin to be mortal. This means that if you did not know the act was seriously wrong, then you are not guilty of having committed a mortal sin. If you did not will the act, e.g., if you were forced or if it was in a dream, if you were impaired or emotionally distraught or terrified, etc., you are not guilty of the act committed.

This also means that if you are NOT a catholic, than #2 above can't apply.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 4:20pm
Adultery is illegal depending on the state you live in. It is also against a catholic's religious beliefs, and many devout catholics will not divorce as they do not believe in divorce.

My family being from Italian ancestry is extremely Catholic and the elder generation take that view of divorce.

I personally dont think that same sex couples should have a marriage, as I am a traditionalist and view marriage is the covenant between a man and a woman, also in my eyes, a marriage is the religious ceremony. I do however support legal civil unions where in the eyes of the law, including the Federal Government, they are granted the same priviledges and protections as married couples, including benefits for the non-working spouse if there is one, and death benefits, etc.

I personally know several homosexuals who are Catholic, but are not devout followers of the Church, or the Bible. They realize that the Church considers what they do to be a sin, but they dont care, and that is fine with me as well.

BTW, these rules generally apply to most Christians, and not only Catholics.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 2:51am
How do you come up with such weirdness? I don't think that the church as a whole is going one way or another. In the past, Catholics were meant to vote based on abortion, and since it is a non issue, (meaning nobody will make it illegal) We do not have the responsibility to vote based on that, though we DO have to vote against the killings of the innocent soldiers and innocent civilians. I would think that more catholics than ever are voting against the Conservative ticket
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 10:02pm
AMEN!